Research Methods I- Qualitative Research- SWRK 653
Qualitative Research–
653
Typos: courtesy of Itamar
Danziger
Mason:
Qualitative thinkingChapter 1Ontology: ones
assumptions about the world
Epistemology:
how one sees knowledge – what is acceptable evidence – epistemology
leads to assumptions about the world (ontology)
-when there is a research study
going on, it is trying to explain one of the following:
developmental:
how X came about
mechanical
– how something works
comparative:
how x and Y are similar or different
causal/predictive:
how one effects another thing
-important – have a good
reading of the theoretical background – to avoid irrelevant or duplicate
studies (!!!) Main questions of research
what is your ontological
framework?
What is your epistemological
framework/
Hat is your broad
research area
What is your intellectual
puzzle/research questions
Aims/purposes of
your research
Chapter 2
– designing qualitative researchQualitative research
strategy and design
-need a research plan – it
lays out your strategy – but it is usually more flexible/dynamic in
design than quantitative research designs
-you gotta tie in your research
question with the methods you choose to use
i.e.:
what methods are
available/appropriate?
What can these methods
tell me (ontological)
On what basis do
I think that (epistemology)
What research questions
will that method help me address?
What theory/literature
will they relate to?
Research
question
Data
sources/methods
Justification
-alternatively –
Research
question
Data
sources/methods
Justification
practicalities
Ethical
issues
-you also wanna see alternate
options of building a study and see what others did – and explain
why your design is best for what you need.
-you need to be able to properly
extrapolate from your research design to your conclusions.
-you may want/need to integrate
different methods to come to answering your research questions. Integrating the methods:
technical:
you gotta make the different methods comparable: i.e. to make the survey
and semi-structured interview align on the scoring level
ontological:
i.e. legal documents and people's experiences are different. You gotta
find a way to relate them
integration
at the level of knowledge/evidence: do the various methods used
stem from comparable epistemologies? For example: the legal expert will
look at the written worn as binding, whereas the psych guy will look
at the motives “behind the words” (therefore, the divorce
rate between couples where one is a lawyer and one is a social worker
is high! – I just made that up)
integration
at the explanation level: does everything (all the sub-methodologies)
fit together to make a coherent conclusion? Even though this is the
end-stage of your study, you may want to plan your study with foresight
into what may come up.
-you need to keep in mind strategic
as well as technical implications of choosing one design over another.
-qualitative methodology tries
to study the subject at hand with its context Important ideas:
validity:
did we study what we really wanted? Does our study really connect with
the concepts
generalizability:
hopefully, our conclusions can be generalized and are not specific/localized
reliability:
can we be crosschecked? Are our tools accurate (i.e. measure the same
thing consistently, or do they vary according to weather, etc…
ethics: we also have
to look at the ramifications of our study as well an even how we phrase
and frame our studies and study designs. Research designs will include:
research question
background to the
research
methodology approach
and research strategy
proposed methods/techniques
of data generation
sampling/access
(i.e. how the data will be collected/scored)
how the data will
be handled/analyzed
plans for pilot
study (including formulizing aim, rationale, design, and review/analysis
technique
ethnical/moral/political
issues are to be dealt with
How long is the
project expected to take?
What resources
are requires?
Who will do the
research? What skills are needed?
Dissemination
plans/proposed uses of the research
Howard
Goldstein – Ethnography, Critical Inquiry and Social Work
Practice
The difference between qualitative
research and practice is clinical distorted. Quantitative tries to isolate
factors, and make it objective while qualitative tries to seek the subjective.
Constructivism: tried to construct the meaning and subjective
reality as created by dialogue between two people –i.e. in a therapeutic
relationship
-qualitative research ties
to be holistic, true to context, and not reduce the situation to mere
numbers.
Ethnography:
studies the experiences of ethnicities: it is a kind of qualitative
research. This approach is more welcomed by the participants, and they
tend to be less resistant to the researcher
-critical inquiry:
a form of inquiry which looks at practice in a critical way – without
the numbers crap of course, but it is the meta-rule of qualitative research.
Just like ethnologies, it assumes that there are multiple realities,
socially/personally created. It is kind of “consciousness raising”.
Assumption: you need to be somewhat part of world in order to understand
it. In a sense, practitioners do ethnography by trying to ender
the clients' world.
Quantitative it top-down: bring
the researcher's schemas into the field. The qualitative research is
bottom-up – in where it creates schemas from the field. Its kind of
like a market study – just for consumers who are generally underrepresented. In short: qualitative
research tried to avoid reducing reality to dry variables.
Sept.
4, 2008
Issues to be discussed in
class
theoretical foundation
of qualitative research
community and cultural
context
qualitative research
methods and tools:
interviewing
focus groups
how to design a
study
stages
conceptualization
methods
data collection
data analysis
results
future research
-here, the people are the center
of our research.
Learning outcomes:
discuss theoretical
foundation of qualitative research
differentiate researchable
qualitative and quantitative social work research questions
articulate the process
of development of qualitative research in SW
design a qualitative
research study
critically analyze
the material you read
Assignments
assignment 1 –
position yourself as a researcher
sept 25
paper outlining
your research question
oct 16
interview and analysis
assignment
oct 30
student presentation
nov 13/20
research proposal
nov 27
written assignment guidelines
APA manual`
Academic integrity
Due dates
Communication
Break
Why are we here?
-improve effectiveness/efficacy
of practice
-understand problems better
-Policymaking is influenced
by research. It is very important to fit in the qualitative… it is
still lacking in the policymaking world
-seeing if practice and policy
decisions regarding appropriate assessments and treatments
What is qualitative research
Multi-method
Non-numeric/text
data
Look at naturalistic
setting – not out of context
Interpretive
Multi-source
myriad methods to
describe moments and meanings
-sees subjectiveness as important
-natural source =is
most important – more than manipulating situation.
The observer is the key
instrument. This has reflexivity;
-in qualitative studies, the
studier is mitigates what he says. Therefore we have to know his position
Descriptive: data is
the words and not the numbers.
Concerned with the process
rather than outcome. Asks how instead of why
something happens
Inductive analysis/interpretive
- seeks to discover – not to test seeks to understand experiences
- looks for themes
Meaning and subjectivity
are central – how do people make sense of their lives? What is
the participant's perspective?
Tradition of inquiry
case study
– exploration of a system or case (1+). There are many kinds of case
studies: interviews/focus groups/etc…
Ethnography:
to learn about a group: implies long term engagement
grounded theory:
looking at the group and then building a theory
narrative:
look at the stories which are told – look at single person's experiences
phenomenology:
an examination of meanings of people's experiences – look at a singular
phenomenon – i.e. parent to ADHD – not individual's experience but
the experience of someone who has X
Qualities of a good researcher
-people mentioned things similar
to individual intervention things – empathy, humor, able to listen,
etc…
Assignment#1
Why do you personally want
to study topic X as opposed to other topic what is it about it that
interests you? What do you bring into the social locations that you
bring to the exploration of this topic? What are the values/goals of
there different social locations? how do those locations and your philosophy
positions shape:
kinds of questions
that you want to ask
theories that you
will choose
setting/populations
that you intend to work with
types of methods
you might choose
no references
Sept. 11, 2008 class
Qualitative research
has 3 principles:
you can learn something
from interactions/relationships. Values human interaction and human
perspective. The participant is central/the way they say/represent/describe.
Compared to quantitative,
qualitative likes to use their language/quotes.
The participants
shapes the study– voice/representation
Historical influences
anthropological
tradition
reflexive paradigm
– questioned positivism
feminist
postmodern
you gotta have:
sociocutural understanding
which is different from physical understanding
shared assumptions
about objective reality/observer neutrality
notion of naturalistic
inquiry
outsider/stranger
within a setting
participant observation
technique
naturalism neglects
subjectivity of researcher
reflexive paradigm
questioning of positivism
(that there one objective truth). Is everything observable and measurable?
Raised concern over
effects of the researcher
Feminist critique:
questionings of positivist methods, because I could be used for political
ends for/against the participants. Neutrality/objectivity is questioned
Need the research
to be useful- not just “understanding” need to be applicable
to bring about action and change to address the issues of oppression
in its various forms
Post-modern critique:
rejection of realism
notion of deconstructivism
(Derrida) questioning idea that researcher cab capture who people act
meaning is not stable/not
properties of individuals but reflect constructions of subjectivities
through language
writing is not a
transparent medium
Foucault: social
research is used to control/surveillance of people
Products of social
research reflect its social character. What is seen as true/false in
social research is seen through the exercise of power
Third methodological method:
mixed methodology
(mix of qualitative and quantitative)
assumption is that
quantitative came before qualitative
each “side”
is seeking superiority
multiple ways of
contextualizing research through integration of approaches
5 guiding assumptions
multiple nature
of reality (ontological)
Close relationship
between researcher and participant (epistemological)
Value laden aspect
of inquiry (axiological issue)
Personal approach
to writing the narrative (theoretical issue) – social workers study
things because “We think it is important!”
Emerging inductive
methodology of the process of research (the methodological issues).
i.e. you speak more about who the person was in the study. This approach
allows the researcher to be more open to the possibility that the participants
will set the tone and not the researcher will set the schematic category.
Video
Questions of qualitative
research
-interested in circumstances
of every day life.
Ethnography
uses
Observation
Participant
observation (observing while participating)
Interview
Textual observation:
uses
Language analysis
rhetorical analysis
content analysis
– look for patterns in the content – i.e. who is being quoted/what
is the themes?/etc… could be interpretive – looking for deeper meeting.
Or looking at plain meaning
applications examples:
circulation of audio-visual
material from terrorists. You can study them better with qualitative
and less from quantitative methods
doing business in
a foreign country – gotta know the culture
gatekeeper: the
contact person – the middle man between the researcher and his participants
from different “cultures” or social groups
Punch,
M. (1998). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N. Denzin
& Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories
and Issues (pp. 156-184). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
This article
discusses potential issues of research:
the researcher is
not neutral
politics of context/organization
might disturb the study
codes/consent
deception
privacy/harm/identification
confidentiality
trust and betrayal
(especially hard for populations like people involved in crime)
Andersen,
M. (1993). Studying across differences: Race class, and gender in qualitative
research. In J. Stanfield & D. Rutledge (Eds.), Race and Ethnicity
in Research Methods (pp. 39-52). Newbury Park: Sage Publications
This article
ponders how/if it is possible to study people in different cultures/statuses
than the qualitative researcher. The assumption is that there is a cultural
difference which makes the understanding of the participant difficult
if not impossible. There is also an element of arrogance/status differences
– in which the researcher is seen as “above” the participant
The conclusion drawn in this article is that it is somewhat possible
– with the researcher's ability to self-reflect his assumptions and
positions.
-Brings up
issues with research ethics, especially qualitative research
-In qualitative research, ethic
issues which come up mostly are:
anonymity
confidentiality
consent
harm
ethical questions which
come up:
using data not for
the proscribed thing
anonymity over the
internet
emotive content
coming up which the study did not initially intend
qualitative study
does not necessarily know fully the research questions until initial
study is underway
is voicing researcher's
“voice” over the one of the participant
themes in ethics writings:
difference between
ethics and morality (ethics are the specific rules of morality)
dealing with ethics
committees and policies – harder for qualitative research
research processes
– i.e. knowing in advance/anonymity/confidentiality/informed consent/silenced
voices
research ethics
trend: ethics needs to be more explicit about new technology used in
studies – i.e. the internet and possible privacy needs
combining the narrative
and ethical issues
For qualitative studies,
research ethic boards need to:
recognize the complexity
of social settings
not knowing the
extent of the data in the beginning
avoiding as much
as possible the literature
emphasizing accuracy
seeking out deviant
or negative cases
Sept 18, 2008
Ethics of concealment:
deception & disclosure
Usually comes up in the consent
form. The question is how much you tell.
Range: disclosureàneglectàdeceit
Neglect is when
you don't tell people at all that you are observing… i.e. if you are
observing people on the street.
Deceit: when
purpose of study and researcher's role in unknown (=full deceit).
Confidentiality and privacy
Anonymity –researcher
doesn't know the participant's details or what category that they are
in. the confidentiality –someone knows who you are but the person
being evaluated (i.e. teacher) does not know who said what -Tenet: never
reveal the identity of the responder
Distress and Emotional
Harm
Principle of least harm
– you have to make arrangements for professional referral prior to
your study!
Informed consent
how to say how long
the study will be/where
identifying the
researcher/organization [include address and phone number for future
contact]
be very clear about
reassurance of voluntary participation
assurance of confidentiality
knowledge of risks
and benefits of the study – i.e. you may become upset
people under 18
– need to phrase for them as well as their parents' signature
for people do don't
want to sign –i.e. illegal immigrants, you have a second form which
you need a witness to sign
need 2 consent forms
– one for you and one for the participant
coercion/deform consent
you need to be aware
of potential for coercion
assure the right
to withdraw
researcher shouldn't
study clients/colleagues
incentives/payback
most funded studies
involve remuneration for respondents' time. But this could be seen as
coercion. Addicts could used for drugs (when addicts are studied). Some
claim: they are adults, so they will have to decide how to use their
money
risk to the researcher
emotional concerns
- ups and downs of fieldwork
exhaustion – of
too many interviews
reactions
threats to physical
safety
power
can't be too voyeuristic
– ethical problem
be aware of your
organization's power
Violation of the moral
code
illegal activity
– you need to guarantee that you won't report it, despite your own
values
socially responsible
research
framing your results
in an unharmful way
guarantee confidentiality
Assignment
1: Positioning Yourself as a Researcher(15%) Due date: September 25,
2008
In this paper (3 pages,
double-spaced, 1” margins), discuss the reasons why you
want to do your proposed study. Reflect on the different
social locations that you bring to the study. What are the values and
goals of these different social locations? How do you think your various
locations and philosophical positions will shape the kinds of questions
you want to answer, the theories you choose, the setting or population
you intend to study, and the kinds of methods you will adopt?
-why am I interested in this?
-who you specifically are –
and how this ties into to your study
Sept 25, 2008
Examining research design
-2nd half of class
– mapping the concepts – for out research design
Reseach components
abstract
– like 100 words
introduction
– presenting your study
problem
– stating the issue that led up to the problem. This states your area
of interest. Acquaints your reader with what your topic is about. It
also introduced key concepts and what has what already studied in regards
to your topic. Then you narrow your approach to specific research question.
Also convey the importance of your proposed study – point out lack
of info in the literature/gap in info) any inadequacy in what is already
known concerning your topic. The need for this study should be obvious
to the reader.
statement
research questions
research context
– i.e. literature review
research methods
plans for
collecting data
plan for analyzing
data
plan for employing
standards of quality
Conclusion:
Implications for findings, plan for dissemination of findings
using philosophic assumptions/theoretical
frameworks/guiding assumptions
multiple nature
of reality (ontological)
close relationship
b/w researcher and researched (epistemology)
value laden aspects
of inquiry (axiological issue)
personal approach
to writing the narrative (rhetorical issue) – i.e. what language you
use
emerging inductive
methodology of the process of research (methodology issue)
conceptualizing the research
process (methodology)
how we conceptualize
the entire process
researchers start
inductively, studies topic within its context and then describes in
detail. Works with details before generalizations and continually revise
questions from experience in field. i.e. looking at elderly àelderly
in Montreal àethnic
differences between caregiver and elderly. The point is tat the concept
in the research is evolving. àneed to explain your structure –
so that issues of credibility doesn't go crazy
Frameworks with
distinct ideologies stance seeks to empower participants, such as a
feminist, post-modern or critical approach, which situates study within
a context, historical framework or socio-political perspective àyour
ideological stance shapes your study – but should not be restrictive.
Ideological perspective
provides conceptual lens for designing a qualitative study to bring
about change and action
Researchers may
employ social science theory to guide qualitative studies
Introduce the study
This phase in
designing your research proposal involves:
Stating the problem
or issue leading to your study
Formulating the
central purpose of the study
Providing the
research questions
Identifies your
area of interest
Acquaints your reader
with what your topic is about
Introduces key concepts
and what has already been studied in regard to your topic
Picking who/what you interview
depends:
your research question
what you want to
know
access to potential
respondents
population (group
from which you select participants)
sample (your chosen
participants)
sampling stratagies
Purposeful or
theoretical sampling
based on the ability
of respondents to provide the needed information
Convenience
sampling
based on ready
availability of respondents (ethics of using captive populations?)
àproblems
include ethics (i.e. participating in your professor's study) and it
might not include all the population sample you want (i.e. a study in
an old age home might include only those who are mobile enough
Snowball sampling
respondents who
know others in similar situation provide suggestions to the researcher
researcher may
advertise for volunteers (ethics approval of materials is needed)
à
downside: may reduce the information that you get (the diversity). Others
will want to keep their identity hidden
In small
groups:
Discuss relationships
you see among concepts.
For example, if
you’ve drawn lines between the concepts, think about directionality.
Think of concrete
examples.
Brainstorm various
ways of arranging the concepts.
Ask your colleagues
if they understand the connections you’ve made.
For
2nd paper
– 16th of october
-state problem leading to your
study
Formulating the central purpose
of the study
Providing the research questions
àlit.
review leading up to the research question. APA format
Family Pathology
àprotective
factors = no repetition of pathology
àn
protective factors = mediating factors in learning the pathology
Question: does next paper include
lit review?
Oct 2, 2008
-get your questions ready for
next class
The research question
specify what you
want to understand by doing your study
shouldn't be formulized
in detail until purposes and context of design are clarified
remain adaptable
to other parts of the design
characteristics of research
questions
open-ended
non-directive/evolving
restate the purpose
of the study in more specific terms
Start with “what”
or “how” rather than “why”
Also, “in what
ways”
Are few in number
One strategy:
reduce entire study to a single over-arching (central) question and
several sub-questions. – i.e. phrasing your statement/question in
one phrase
Bhattacharjea (1994)
What is the nature
of the expectations that affect female administrators’ actions?
What strategies
do female administrators adopt to deal with these constraints in the
context of a gender-segregated and male-dominated environment?
àassumption:
there are constrains
Comments?
Example
Bhattacharjea (1994)
What is the nature
of the expectations that affect female administrators’ actions?
What strategies
do female administrators adopt to deal with these constraints in the
context of a gender-segregated and male-dominated environment?
Comments?
Your research questions
need to take account of
Why you want to
do the study (your purposes)
What is already
known about the things you want to study and your tentative theories
about these phenomena (your conceptual context)
Assignment #2
Describe issue being
addressed and why it is important to address it (problem statement)
Describe how you
became interested in the research topic.
Provide purpose
of the study (purpose statement) and show path you took to formulating
your research question (include preliminary research questions).
Justify use of qualitative
methodology to explore it
Use clear, well-edited
writing style, APA standards for references
Who will help you enter
the field?
Gaining entry: common questions
from those in the setting
1) What are you actually going
to do?
Be honest; try
to explain your intentions clearly; don’t be too lengthy in your explanation.
2) will you be disruptive?
Part of being
successful is being non-disruptive; assure participants you will not
make excessive demands; be sensitive to their problems and requirements.
Gatekeeper: people
within the community who will help you accessed them.
What are you
going to do with your findings?
Decide how you
will use the material; share this decision/information with your participants.
What will we
get out of this?
Decide what you
are prepared to give.
Gaining entry and staying
in
finding a gatekeeper
gaining formal permission
maximize your acceptance
(fitting in)
gain rapport and
build trust
by sympathetic to
the goals of the group
provide safeguards
for people – i.e. if person gets upset, turn off recorder/take a break/safe
space
Difference between research
questions and interview questions
If you are conducting interviews
in your study:
Your research questions
identify the issues you want to understand
Your interview questions
will provide the data that you need to understand these issues.
Research interviews are
different than clinical interviews:
Goals – data collection
and not assessment and intervention
content – just
narrowed to studies material
relationship
framing your study
Begin with puzzlements
and jottings
What is your interest/what
is pussling you
Do a global sorting
and ordering
Identify the subtopics/themes
Do a section sorting
& ordering
Decide the order
of your concerns and questions to arrive at the overall research design
– the idea is to narrow it down
Achieving coherence;
Dichpronic:
look at development and change over time – i.e. the attached study
of parents –how attachment develops
Synchronic:
looks at themes – i.e. occupationally successful men – what makes
them successful
What type of information
will you collect? (Lofland, 1984)
Who is s/he? What
does s/he do?
What do you think
is meant by that
What are they supposed
to do?
Why did she do it
Why is it done
What happens after____?
What does she think
that?
Who is responsible
if___?
etc..
structure of interview
structured – all
are asked the same questions
semi-structured
informal
structured interview
formal structure
of interview questions
all are asked the
same questions
less room for exploration
assumptions:
Questions are sufficient
and comprehensive
Wording is relevant
and will elicit desired information
Meaning is the same
for every subject
Examples:
Is your housing
adequate?
Do you have enough
money to live comfortably?
Unstructured interview
Characteristics:
Open-ended
No schedule of questions
Process of developing
and adapting questions (probes) along the way
Assumptions:
Research does
not know relevant questions
Meanings of questions
will differ for participants
Example:
Describe a typical
day in your work week…walk me through it
Useful when the
researcher is unfamiliar with respondent’s lifestyle, customs, etc.
-unstructured interview is
harder to code – but you are looking for themes in such interviews
Semi-structured interview:
Characteristics:
Located between
structured and unstructured interviews
Involves predetermined
questions or special topics
Interviewees
are permitted to digress
Interviewers
are permitted to probe
Assumptions:
Interviewer has
idea of where interview should go but does not feel restricted to this
path
Thinking of what to ask:
experiences/behavior
of a certain issue
opinions/values
specific knowledge/facts
[depends on if you are looking for that kind of data
feeling/emotion
[in response to a situation]
sensory impressions
background/demographic
info [could be problematic – and we'll discuss it]
Factors that shape the
questions you ask
Problem you are
investigating (What do you want to know?)
Material you want
to collect and boundaries of your study (overall frame)
Repertoire of understandings
based on previous work and study, familiarity with literature and experiences
Pilot research (in
practice, we then go on to develop better ideas about what to ask) –they
are made form people who fall under the same group as population
Sense of what will
give substance to eventual report
Who do you interview?
Depends on...
your research question
what you want to
know
access to potential
respondents
population (group
from which you select participants)
sample (your chosen
participants)
Types of questions
Basic descriptive
Can you tell
me about your car accident? Tell me what happened that evening. Describe
how you felt?
Follow-up
You mentioned
that “planning time” is important to you. Can you tell me how you
use planning time?
Experience/example
You mentioned
that you loved going to Paris. Can you give me some examples of what
you loved about the city?
Simple clarification
You used the term
“constructivist teacher” today. Can you clarify that for me? What
can you tell me about your own constructivist teaching?
Comparison/contrast
You said there’s
big difference between a great principal and an ordinary one. What are
some of these differences? Can you describe them for me?
Structural/paradigmatic
You stated that
this class was problematic. What would you describe as the cause of
these problems? Of all the things you have told me about being a critical
care nurse, what is the underlying premise of your workday? In other
words, what keeps you going everyday?
àbetter
to record – so you won't be stuck taking notes. You may want to write
down key words
Questions to include
Essential
questions
Focus of the study
- questions that interest you
Place them together
or scatter them through out the interview
Extra questions
Equivalent to
essential ones but worded differently- i.e. if one question was worded
in a way not clear to the interviewee
Included to check
the reliability of responses or impact of changing the wording of questions
Throw-away
questions
Used to develop
rapport at the beginning of an interview – i.e. how was your day?
Used to change
the pace or focus on the interview – if the person needs to become
more involved or to slow down [but you can't use something wild and
unrelated]
Demographic questions
could be used as a throw away question- but some don't like to answer
things like age, especially right in the beginning
Probing questions
Way to draw out
more complete stories- i.e. can you describe this? How does this happen?
Allows participants
to elaborate on their responses
Questions to avoid
Affectively
worded questions
Questions that
are known to/or likely to arouse negative emotional responses – i.e.
even subtly putting an emotional twist to your questions
Neutralize the
topic in order to improve the response. Sometimes, you have to build
rapport before asking sensitive questions/phrases
Complex questions
Keeping questions
brief and concise helps to ensure that respondent understands them
Double-barrelled
questions
Asks a respondent
to answer two questions simultaneously
Results in confusion
or failure to answer one or both questions
Far better to ask
two questions instead
Wording
Questions must be
worded so respondents understand them and so they provide a necessary
focus for the respondent
Order
Sequence of questions
may affect responses
Begin with non-threatening
questions or demographics
Develop rapport
through demeanour and eye-contact
what do you do about
x
describe your views
on
what are your views
on
what concerns you
most about
in your opinions,
what is the public's view of
What do you think
are types of challenges people with have? how do you think that
these challenges could be addressed
Questions to ask yourself
and others about your interview questions (Manson, 1997)
What does this
question mean to me?
Is the intended
meaning easily understood?
How would I ask
this question of someone else?
Might I encounter
resistance to obtaining an answer to this question?
How could I rephrase
the question to reduce such resistance?
Small group work
on own, write 1
problematic interview question
discuss the problematic
question
revise the question
and share with group
so, did you actually
abuse your child, and how could you?
Anderson,
K. & Jack, D.C. (1991). Learning to
Listen: Interview Techniques andAnalyses. In Sherna Berger
Gluck and Daphne Patai (Eds.), Women’s Words: the Feminist Practice
of Oral History (pp. 11-25). New York: Routledge.
3 factors
are named as thwarting the interviewee from on reflecting on experiences:
organization/interviewer
agenda
not [fully] shifting
from traditional to feminist [narrative?] paradigms
conventions of social
discourse
shedding agendas
-many times, important experiential
and subjective information is lost in the interview due to the interviewer
[or organization's] agenda ài.e. sticking to facts/certain details
and experiences while not to others/face value of information The problem of
not [fully] shifting from traditional to feminist [narrative?] paradigms
-important to suspend our prevailing
schemas when interviewing – this allows for the subjective to emerge Conventions of social discourse:
if you want to got
the subjectiveness of people from cultures which are pragmatic in their
way of speaking, then speaking solely in their form of speaking will
not elicit enough subjectiveness
some interviewers
fear asking about subjectiveness for lack of clinical training
interviewers might
feel tension between their interviewing interests and cultural norms
(i.e. in groups where you can't question elders, then asking the younger
generation about their subjective experiences on the matter might be
hard, especially in front of those elders)
gotta ask about
the meaning of the language used – i.e. what does “nervous breakdown”,
“good wife”, “good husband” mean [to the person
speaking/interviewee] àthis allows to see how a person experiences
living up to his or her ideals
sometimes, there
are messages in our questions, such as shifting topic in our questions
– possible message: can't speak to much about this or that emotion/topic
3 techniques of understanding
the narrator (Jack):
listening to the
person's moral language: seeing the discrepancy between
self-concept and social norms. i.e. being a good woman might be understood
as being dependant on husband àwe might need to rephrase such statements
in strengths lingo: need for closeness, and how it is not answered by
the morals of the male-dominated society
meta-statements:
statements about statements. i.e. “what does morality mean to you?” àhelps
the person see discrepancies within the self. It help expose the categories
used to monitor one's thoughts.
Logic of the
narrative: seeing consistencies and contradictions in one's
narratives of themes. Seeing assumptions and beliefs about interpretation
of one's experience. i.e. thinking “one should serve others”
as well as “serving only oneself” might lead to a hopeless
experience àhard
to balance self and others.
àbalancing
isolation and subordination.
àintersection
of unresolved personal issues ad conflicting social ideals might lead
to difficulties of forming positive/realistic image of the self
àthus,
depression could be seen on the individual level but can also be seen
in social/historical perspective
Conclusion:
-interviewing can help us sharpen
conflicts/complexities of life. Historians should look at more subjective
aspects of the interview while psychologists should give more weight
to contextual elements
-this article tried to help
people shift focus from fact-finding to process/interactional uncovering
[can't focus on non-verbal cutes in textual studies!] Moving from informational
to interactive processes requires skills (Anderson):
actions/things/events
are accompanied by emotional experiences which give them meaning
some of those feelings
exceed the boundaries of accepted/expected norms
people must explain what they mean in their own terms
Further points to sharpen
our attention to interactive processes
listening to the
narrator
questions need to
be open-ended to allow narrator to tell own story. Narrator's interpretation
and experiences guide the interview
if question are
not answered, then what/whose questions are their answering?
What are the feelings
about facts/events described?
How is the interviewer
understanding what happened? What is the meaning of those events? Does
the narrative see the issue in more than one way? How does s/he evaluate
what is being described?
What is being left
out? What is “absent”?
listening to ourselves
(as interviewers)
not cutting off
the interviewee and not steer to our concerns
trust out hunches/feelings/responses
that arise through listening to others
notice our own areas
of confusion or of too great a certainty about what the narrator is
saying àthose
are areas to probe further
notice out personal
discomforts – those are alarm bells alerting us to the discrepancy
between what is said and what the narrator is feeling
-oral history interviews allow
going beyond the storyline through the interaction of researcher and
subject. It allows for a revelation of experience which is less culturally
edited.
àyet the interviewer has to be careful
not to intrude: gotta follow the narrator's lead. It may be hard to
balance privacy and the promotion of expressiveness
October 9, 2008
Data collection
Components o the research
design
using philosophical
and theoretical assumptions
writing an intro
to the study
collecting
your data
analyzing your data
employing standards
of quality and verifying results
writing the narrative
preparation for the research
interviews
before you do the
actual interviews:
be aware of your
issues and where you stand on them [before you start your interviewing]
prepare an information
letter [introducing/study/inviting participants]
prepare a consent
form – one for you and one for them.
Prepare a face
sheet – to collect demographic data àhelps us organization – may sign
a pseudonym/care number/etc…
Develop an interview
guide, including probes à i.e. a list of questions
Get a tape recorder/tapes/batteries àmake
sure they all work!
Arrange a referral
source [or participants] and debriefing [for yourself] àconfidentiality is paramount for the
participant
Some interview tips
–Berg, 1992, 57-58
never start the
interview cold àdepends where the interview takes place
take a few minutes
to establish yourself
remember your purpose
have the interview
guide handy and stay on track àhelps your organization and time management
present a neutral
front
know your questions
well enough so you can ask them in a neutral manner
demonstrate through
non-verbal responses that you are listening ài.e. smile when something funny is
said àpeople
need to know that your are listening. Therefore, give same attention
and energy levels as you did with first interview
think about appearance
and how you look to others
dress appropriately
for your interviewer
interview in a comfortable
place – select a place where the interviewee feels comfortable –
i.e. not a place which the interview can be overheard, since its probably
very personal
do not be satisfied
with single word answers – so you gotta ask “can you tell me
more about that? What else happened?”
be respectful –
ensure that participant feels included and knows you value the answers à
you may not agree with the answers, but you still need to be respectful
Practice!!! Develop
your own repertoire of action [style]
Be cordial/appreciative:
thank the participant and answer questions about the research
provide contextual
information àrepresents
a particular reality àit is an important source of triangulation
represents a specific
version of reality constructed for specific realities and for specific
purposes
for quality assessment:
authenticity/credibility/representativeness and meaning àyou
have to note where the information came from for the benefit of anyone
reading the report
Visual data
photographs/film/video
who decides what
events/aspects worthy of being captured? Researcher has to think about
that!!!
Visual data vs.
“the truth” àwhat is considered “the truth”?
What is in the picture/what
is left out/what is the focus? ài.e. is the media being altered?
analysis is often
in triangulated with other data collection and sources àstrengthens credibility of finding
participant observation
doing fieldwork
– what is participant observer?
Ethnographic strategies
Researcher for data
collection that place researcher in midst of what they study
Researcher's concern
is to learn about and understand everyday life of a community, settings,
actors, etc… from the perspective of the participants (Berg, 1995)
Resulting narrative
provides a thick description [verbal snapshot of what is going on –
a different perspective] or cultural description [Wolcott, 1973] of
some aspects of daily life
Gold's typology of observer
roles – 1958
-roles are not static àpeople
may move positions depending on interactions
complete observer ài.e.
watching a videotape of an intervention
observer as
participant
participant
as observer
complete participant àmight
lose a critical perspective/losing one's impartiality/maintaining some
distance needed for impartiality.
how does the participant-observer
role differ from our everyday role as an observer?
dual purpose à
you are participating, but also taking notes
heightened or explicit
awareness to task àwe have a purpose, so you are paining
more attention to details àallows for richer note taking
viewing setting
as wider-angled lens
Experience an insider/outsider
tension while in field ài.e. are you a teacher or an observer?
Might be a hard position to be in?
Reflect on ‘presence
of self’ àseeing
how you might influence the outcomes
Keep records of
our observations
How do we select people/places
to study?
Does the setting
complement your general interest? Will this answer your questions?
Do you have easy
access to the setting?
How easy or difficult
will it be to ‘blend in’? àthis is a tough thing to do!
Is the setting sufficiently
active or busy? Need to be able to collect data!
What ethical issues
arise in relation to your choice? Some sensitive areas, like ER has
to be thought through, since it is a sensitive place
Recording information:
writing field notes
Written account
of what researcher
Hears
Sees
Experiences
Thinks
-in the course of collecting/reflecting
upon data
àyou
need to separate what you see and what you think/interpret. Some people
write what is observed and what is interpreted on 2 sides of a page
Field notes
Important supplement
to other data collection methods (contributing toward triangulation,
to be discussed later) àstrengthened dindings –field notes
become a data source
Help keep track
of development of project
Help to visualize
how research plan has been affected by data collected
Help you to be self-conscious
of how you may have been influenced by (and may have influenced) data àkeep
notes of what you specifically were thinking àkeep those notes!!!!!! This is important
in qualitative research
Fieldnotes: Descriptive/Substantive
and Reflective
Descriptive
aspect of fieldnotes is intended to capture a word-picture of setting,
people, actions, conversations àcan encompass different ares, i.e.
physical setting, snippets of dialogue
Descriptive
fieldnotes encompass the following areas:
portraits of participants
reconstruction of
dialogue
description of the
physical setting
accounts of particular
events accounts
depiction of activities
observer’s behaviour
Reflective
aspect of fieldnotes is meant to capture observer’s frame of mind,
ideas, concerns.
Emphasis is on speculation,
feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, impressions, prejudices
This set of notes
will contain:
reflections on analysis
reflections on method
reflections on ethical
dilemmas and conflicts
reflections on observer’s
frame of mind
points of clarification
àhave
a field log – source of data –needs to be methodical:
data time/who the people are/methodological issues
Recording the information you gather
What are substantive field
notes?
your records from
the field [jotting, key words, phrases, sketches, maps, etc…]
log from which your
analysis will emerge [Lofland and Lofland, 1995]
description without
interpretation
what are you looking for?
physical space and
setting
actors and their
words/actions
interaction/relationships/emotions
felt and expressed àor what you think they are
Focus
group - is a group interview. It began as a marketing thing
it allows for:
1) data collection
2) interactional information
3) researcher's active role in creating the group discussion
-focus groups are not therapeutic
groups, or leaderless groups. the point is that there is specifically
a researcher who tries to collect data
Group interviews are different
that focus groups because Group interviews
(i) are conducted in informal settings
(ii) use nondirective interviewing; or
(iii) use unstructured question formats
-there is a debate as to how much directiveness one needs in
a focus group
Focus groups are used social sciences, such as in: communication studies,
education, political science , public health, aging, criminology, medical
sociology, political sociology, social movements, and the sociology
of work
-One can use Focus groups to get at things like program evaluation and
efficiency
-Focus groups “give a voice” to marginalized groups
-advantages to focus group include
* empowering “clients”
* as a tool in action and participatory research
*Similarly, feminist researchers have noted the appeal of focus groups
because they allow participants to exercise a fair degree of control
over their own interactions
-one can combine focus groups with other methods, like surveys or personal
interviews
-combining survey and focus group is complex since you are combining
qualitative and quantitative methodologies
-when choosing your method of data collection, one can assume that different
tools collect the same data in better or worse ways, depending on the
situation, or that they collect different information
There is a trade-off between the depth that focus groups provided and
the breadth that surveys offered.
Comparing between focus groups and individual interview: the existence
of differences between what is said in individual
and group interviews is as much a statement about our culture as our
methods,and this is clearly a research topic of interest in its own
right.
-strength of focus groups is not simply in exploring what people have
to say, but in providing insights into the sources of complex behaviors
and motivations, and seeing how the interacting influences those behaviors
Strengths of Focus group
include: * seeing interactions
* seeing agreements and disagreements
* seeing diversity
* people help each other explain themselves
Weaknesses of Focus group include: * group's influence of data
* researcher's influencing the data -->also true for other tools
of data collection
* impact of the group on its participants concerns the range of topics
that can be researched effectively in groups -->i.e. some things
are generally not appropriate or easy to discuss in public.
Research Design: some claim the need to make more methodological the
focus group tool.
--> many of the group-level
decisions are related to issues of group dynamics that help to ensure
a productive discussion. PROJECT-LEVEL DESIGN
ISSUES
* standardization -->debates as to whether one needs it in qualitative
research
* sampling issues
* Number of groups - i.e. how many people in each group
GROUP-LEVEL DESIGN ISSUES
* Level of Moderator Involvement
* Group Size
Quality concert
Need high standards for reporting (i.e. group composition, questions
asked), as well as highly trained interviewer Future of Focus groups -need more specification on specifically how to do data analysis
with this
Dr. David Este
– guest lecturer
– focus group
Focus group
-generated by group – members
have data – thoughts/emotions, etc…
Kruger: carefully planned
discussion
orienting oneself
to a new field
getting data about
complex behavior
evaluating different
research sites/populations
getting participant
interpretation f results of previous studies or studies in progress
generating information
for questionnaire constructing
focus group myths
they are cheap àactually
they are not because it takes a long time to set up
people speak about
sensitive issues in group. Yeah right!
Focus groups tend
to produce conformity
Must be validated
by other ways of data collection
Characteristics of focus
groups
focus groups involve
people
focus groups is
a data collection procedure
focus groups make
use of qualitative data
Advantages of focus group
interviews
socially oriented
research procedure
format allows the
moderator to probe
relatively low cost
can provide speedy
results
increase the sample
size of qualitative research
limitations
researcher has less
control in the group than individual therapist
data is more difficult
to analyze
the technique requires
training
groups can vary
considerably
difficult to ensemble
the discussion is
focused
planning
what is the purpose
what is the right
method
identifying information
rich participants
how many groups
to conduct
-gotta make sure that the place
is set up comfortably – not in public. Some interview in two – best
sitting across from each other – to see everyone around.
Hosting the group
refreshment
incentives
other people coming
with the participants
co-moderator:
roles
recording
quality of equipment
familiarization
checking before
and after group
recruiting participants
-gotta explain why you are
doing this research – i.e. its purpose
Selection strategies
incentives
money
food
gifts
positive/upbeat
invitation
quality of good focus
group questions
use they words
clear
short
open ended question
easy to state
àties
in to “safe environment”
Examples of probes
would you explain
more
anything else you
would like to share
is there anything
else
I do not understand
Beginning of the focus
group discussion
welcome
overview of the
topic
the ground rules
the first question
ethics
-ethics boards are part of
such studies
-we need to make sure no hard
is done to anyone
àconsent
for is important. The downside is that it
Role of moderator
facilitation of
the discussion process
encourage diversity
of perspectives
encourage discussion
from quiet participants
keep on track
moderator roles
seeker of wisdom
enlightened novice
expert consultant
challenger
referee
writer
team discussion
leader/technical expert
the therapist
-need to be respectful to all
participants ài.e.
set the tone for entire session
-anticipating the flow of discussion
-moderator's reactions to respondents
Closing the session
-Wind up discussions
-thank the participants
-Describing follow-up/debrief
Capturing data
video
audio
etc..
-be ready for the unexpected!
i/e/ no one shows up/showing up with kids/etc…
October 23, 2008
Data analysis
we do data analysis
after we collect our data
it involves breaking
it down to manageable chucks/synthesizing/searching for patterns/discovering
what is important to others
it has to be meaningful
to anyone we explain it to
we can explain our
goals/conclusions
2 modes of data
analysis as pertaining to field work
Concurrent to the
fieldwork
Start only after
data collection
àin
practice, it is best to mix between the two
make analysis an
ongoing part of data collection and be ready for final analysis as soon
as leaving the field
force yourself to
make decisions that narrow the study
force yourself to
make decisions concerning the type of study that you want to accomplish
develop analytic
questions, substantive and theoretical questions [linking theory and
practice]– it is advised for beginners to use substantive questions
and leave theoretical questions for the final analysis
plan data collection
sessions in light of what you found in previous observations
analysis in the field:
write as many observer's
comments about ideas that you generate
write memos to yourself
about what you are learning
try out your ideas
and themes on subjects
begin exploring
literature when you are in the field
play with metaphors/analogies/concepts
use visual devices
general tips [in
and out of the field] –do not be afraid to speculate, vent energy
created by mulling over ideas. Jot down lots of ideas while reviewing
your data
have a rest after
data collection – as long as it is reasonable
developing coding categories
-important stage in data analysis
you can use words/numbers
influences by paradigm/literature/research ài.e.
your background. Examples:
situation
process/words/sequence
of events
relationship/social
structure
mechanics of working
with the data
having a scheme
– regardless of which scheme, as long as you have a logical scheme
– i.e. using color schemes
making a list of
codes – i.e. of their abbreviations
go through data
and marking each unit with appropriate coding
important to number
your pages/possibly number your paragraph and line too!
Subdivide your themes
and sub-sub divide your themes
Variations on coding:
Open coding [separate/non-applied
codes, looking for the themes without pre-defining things]
Basic questions
what is it about
here? What phenomena are mentioned here?
Who – which actors/persons
are involved?
By which means/tactics/strategies
are we going to reach our goals
How much? What is
the intensity/strength?
Why? – what are
the reasons which are given or could be reconstructed
What purpose? What
are the intentions
Moving from codes to
themes
-look for relationships between
the codes
àwhich
themes jump out?
àidentify
strong and important quotes
Data processing and transformation
from grounded theory
Abstraction –
prominent features/characteristics
Generalizing –connect/link
similar features/patterns
Categorizing –link/sort/organize/connect
together
Grbich,
C. (2007). Theorising from data. In Carol Grbich,
Qualitative data analysis (pp.185-194). London: Sage.
Theorizing
from data
-you can have three levels
of theory:
Micro-theory
Mid-theory
Grand theory
Theorizing
-you can look at the data
a pre-determined
theory:
methodological underpinning:
looking at the data, looking for specific elements: i.e. grounded theory
looks for interactions
researcher choice:
look across various theories to get a more abstract explanation
theory minimalization
theory testing vs. theory
generation
theory testing/direction:
theory is stated and data is meant to test this theory - Set theory/concept
to an observation
theory generation:
draw ideas from various theories
theory
micro
–deal with a concept
mid
– concept interaction
grand
- overview
classical ethnographic
approaches: Theory directing
newer ethnographic approaches:
you do not have to start with a theory!
grounded theory:
organize your data through constant comparing with other segments of
data, theory and literature
substantive theory:
particular theory
formal theory:
deal with the broader picture
phenomenology –
depth of experience, but looks for the broader perspective too
feminist research
content analysis:
predefined categories
word co-occurrence,
[factor analysis], using psych scales, thematic analysis
conversation analysis
semiotic analysis
of visual images
analysis of universal
visual material –i.e. how the front page of the newspaper is displayed
hermeneutic approach
– i.e. see what is excluded
theory building
through metaphor – i.e. make analogies to see a new organizing logic
summary
-you can use micro/mid/grand
theories or a mix of them.
October 30, 2008
Moving your analysis forward and writing up your results
Components of the research
design
1. Using philosophical &
theoretical frameworks
2. Writing the introduction
to the study
3. Collecting data
4. Analyzing data
5.
Employing standards of quality & verifying results
6. Writing the narrative
report
Finding a balance
-Making sense of data entails
movement from description to analysis to interpretation.
Description
What is going on here? Data
consist of observations made by researcher and/or reported to researcher
by others
Analysis
Addresses identification of
essential features and systematic description of inter-relationships
among them - in short, how things work.
In terms of stated objectives,
analysis may also be employed to address questions of why system is
not working or how it might be made to work better.
àmoving
to higher level of abstraction – i.e. looking at other theories that
exist
Interpretation
-Addresses questions of meanings
and contexts - What does it all mean? What is to be made of it all?
Turn to theory -
examine case in terms of competing theories
Connect with personal
experience - this is how research affected me
Analyze interpretive
process - What is puzzling? What is missing?
Interpret analytic
process – introspection
Explore alternative
formats (media, poetry, etc.)
Extend the analysis
- offer comparative perspectives
Mark and make the
leap - interpret (with caution) despite uncertainty
When you come to
end, stop - go as far as you can with confidence and them stop
Do as directed -
work toward immediate goal (thesis passed, article published)
Basic definitions
What is a concept?
– looking for themes
Units of abstract
thought which identify common aspects of phenomena.
What is theory?
– abstracting from the themes
Abstract knowledge
which has been developed as an account regarding a group of facts or
phenomena.
Using theory in your
analysis
Theory directing
– testing a theory
Using pre-chosen theoretical
positions that direct your research and against which you place your
findings
Theory generating
Draw range of theoretical
frameworks from literature
Visual representation
of something – good for visual people
Integral to analysis
process
May be used to illustrate
categories or themes
Forms of depiction
Typology (what are
the topic’s types?)
Matrix (rows &
columns)
Concept charting
(envisioning relationships)
Flow chart (time
sequence)
Tree diagram (connections)
CONSTRUCTING A THEORETICAL
NARRATIVE FROM TEXT
(Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003, 42-76)
PHASE I: Making text manageable
Working at level
of text itself – make clear your connections how your data and conclusion
Filtering process
in which you choose which parts of your transcript you will include
in your analysis and which parts you will set aside
In this phase, you
use your research concerns to select relevant text
Step 1: Explicitly state
research purpose and theoretical framework.
Your research
purpose is what you want to learn about and why.
Simple act of explicitly
stating your research concern focuses you on what you want to know and
why. Some text will be left out –it narrows the focus. Pulling themes
helps this àwhat
you want to learn about and why
Your research purpose
provides a blueprint for making coding decisions.
Step 2: Select relevant
text for further analysis.
You need to cut down mass of raw data to manageable proportions
Method is simple
and direct - when you encounter passage that contains an idea relevant
to your research concerns, “highlight” it
Continue in this
way until you have worked through entire transcript
Relevance is subjective;
keep in mind when reading transcript: - if it is relevant, note it,
and how it relates to your research purpose
Does it relate to
your research purpose?
Does it help you
understand participants better?
Does it clarify
your thinking?
Does it simply seem
important, even if you can’t say why?
Can approach highlighting
by 1) quickly and impressionistically, trusting that meaning of what
you are doing will be clear in the end, or 2) more deliberately, writing
memos to yourself each time you underline a passage, recording why you
thought selection was important and any thoughts or ideas stimulated
by text
Step 3: Discover repeating
ideas by grouping together related passages of relevant text
A repeating
idea is an idea expressed two or more times in the relevant
text.
These are beginning
building blocks from which you will eventually assemble a theoretical
narrative
Aim is to create
a master list of repeating ideas
Name your repeating
ideas, using short quotes from relevant text, in participants’ words
as much as possible
PHASE II: Hearing what was
said
Step 4: Organize themes
by grouping repeating ideas into coherent categories.
A theme
is an implicit idea or topic that a group of repeating ideas has in
common
Reduce #
of repeating ideas to average of 15
Name your themes
with easily understood phrases
that express common thread (i.e., conceptual similarity between repeating
ideas)
Once you have identified
all themes, check out your work with a member of group you are studying
who is not involved in your project
Working at a more
abstract level to group themes into more general concepts called theoretical
constructs
A theoretical
construct is an abstract concept that organizes a group of themes
by fitting them into a theoretical framework
Use constructs to
create a theoretical narrative
Code book is a master
plan of codes and what they mean
PHASE III: Developing theory
Step 5: Develop theoretical
constructs by organizing themes into more abstract concepts.
Theoretical constructs
move analysis from description of subjective experience found in repeating
ideas and themes to a more abstract level
Name your theoretical
constructs: When grouping your themes, you had thoughts about organizing
principle(s) that hold themes together. Recall these and now draw on
literature and your general knowledge to find a theory or concept that
explains this organizing principle - names of theoretical constructs
should use language of the theory on which you draw
Verify your work
with consultants, make adaptations as relevant, that have emerged from
their feedback
Step 6: Create theoretical
narrative by retelling participant’s story in terms of theoretical
constructs.
A theoretical
narrative – this is important for qualitative research –
it makes sense of the stories, and makes it scientific valid
Describes process
that research participants reported in terms of your theoretical constructs.
Uses your theoretical
constructs to organize people’s subjective experiences into a coherent
story.
Employs people’s
own language to make their story vivid and real.
You create narrative
by organizing your constructs into personal story that describes subjective
experience of research participants
Begin narrative
by describing research concerns then describe first theoretical construct
as it applies to research participants
Break down construct
into its thematic experiential components, using language of repeating
ideas to make experience vivid and real - using repeating ideas tells
the story in participant’s own words.
Do this with each
theoretical construct
Determine your daily writing
goal
sit there
method - write for a certain amount of time every day
inspiration
method - write until you come up with three ideas
many pages
method - write a certain number of pages every day
thinking on paper
Freewriting
Write whatever comes
into your head, as fast as you can type, without reference to outlines,
notes, data, books, or any other aids.
Object is to find
what you would like to say, what all your earlier work on topic or project
has already led you to believe.
Learn to write in
order to think, to encourage thought, to tease thought out of chaos
or out of fright.
Start with a small
task, learning to write for 15 minutes a day, no matter what.
Making a mess
When you sit down
to begin writing, aim to “make a mess” - to say anything that comes
to mind, on the subject or off it
Don’t worry about
logical connections
“Play with your
subject the way you used to make mud pies, to do no fine detail work,
to spell poorly if that’s your natural inclination, and to generally
forget about standards all together.”
Keep the flow
going
If the writing doesn’t
sound good to you while you’re writing, it’s fine to make a note
to yourself about this.
Put that commentary
in midst of text, using square brackets, or a different colour ink or
pencil, so that when you come back to revise, you can recognize and
engage quickly with problems already noted.
Don’t stop to
hunt for words. If you can’t get just the right word, list 3 or 4
alternatives, choices, words. Use thesaurus while working on second
draft, when doing that won’t threaten to interrupt flow of thoughts
and feelings (Fine, p. 35).
Writing as
thinking
You have already
made many choices when you sit down to write but may not know what they
are.
Can lead to confusion—a
good thing!—and to mixed-up early draft.
Knowing that you’ll
write many more drafts, don’t worry about one draft’s crudeness
and lack of coherence. Think: “This one is for discovery, not for
presentation”
You begin to notice
you are coming back to the same ideas in different forms; this lets
you see what’s there; it makes sorting out your thoughts easier and
lets you see what you want to say (Fine, p. 56).
Myth of the perfect first
try (Fine, p. 49)
Face your fears
and the risks of writing
Opening yourself
to scrutiny involves coming to trust yourself and colleagues
Constructive feedback
from colleagues makes it possible for you to trust yourself
Why is it hard to
trust colleagues?
Who do you think
you are?
Every piece of writing
is evidence of your work
Denigrating others
can ease our own insecurities
Comments made about
us (professional image)
Sharing drafts is
risky…few people understand what working drafts are
Develop your own work process
Devise strategies
that suit who you are, how you work
Take your work habits
seriously and scrutinize them to see if they need revamping
Ask yourself what
kind of research by other people you find most interesting and enjoyable
to read
Might mean finding
a good model in a related area
Once you start
Internal Interruptions:
Ambivalence
Part of you wants
to finish, other does not, nothing happens—recognize it
Static
Unrelated thoughts,
feelings, other distractions pass through your mind
Try focusing techniques
such as meditation
By giving static
bits of time, you might prevent it from taking all your time
Writing scared
Anxiety can be healthy/unhealthy
Use this and continue
to write
Learn to work despite
your anxiety
You don’t have
to get un-scared first
Tips for writing
Park on downhill slope
to keep the flow going
Writing on downhill
slope on Monday is a wonderfully simple way to jump-start your writing
on Tuesday because you’ve already done hardest part of beginning:
you’ve decided what you are going to write about.
If you change your
mind partway through, just write about your new topic and make sure
you park on downhill slope at the end of Tuesday (Fine, p. 97).
Frequency is key
(if you lose it, it takes half a day to re-enter)
Use positive reinforcement
- reward yourself each step of the way as you accomplish small goals
Set realizable goals:
better 2 pages than 10 (too overwhelming)
Write even if you
feel tired or have nothing to say
deadlines
Deadlines are essential
Focus on estimated
date of completion
Remain aware of
deadlines, know how you work and what you need
Moving from Zero to a
first draft
Pick out words or
sentences that seem interesting, provocative or resonant and try starting
with them
Ask yourself what
stands out for you in what you’ve written
Read to organize,
marking potential themes with codes or colours
Identify argument
within the mess
Ask yourself: Do
I think what I’ve said is what’s going on? Do I still believe it?
Try writing repeatedly
in 5-10 minute spurts of free writing...what am I really trying to say
in this argument, chapter, section?
Read to extract
a provisional outline
Techniques for exploring
ideas (Hacker, 1996) – organizational tools
Listing
Brainstorm ideas
as they occur to you
Clustering
Write your topic
in centre of sheet of paper, draw a circle around it, and surround that
circle with related ideas connected to it with lines
If some of satellite
ideas lead to more specific clusters, write them down as well
Branching
Put main idea at
top of the page and list major supporting ideas beneath it, leaving
plenty of space between ideas
To right of each
major topic, branch out to minor ideas, drawing lines to indicate the
connections
If minor ideas lead
to more specific ideas, continue branching
Asking questions
Ask relevant questions
to generate many ideas: who, what, when, where, why, how
Goal statement
Write one statement
that summarizes the paper and what you intend to cover
Audience
Determining
the target audience
One audience vs
multiple audiences - thesis readers, community
Type of audience
- course, colleagues, policy makers, etc.
What will the report
be used for – stored in a filing cabinet, practice guidelines, policy,
etc.
Common presentation
style for target audience – academic paper, practice report, creative
medium
Reaching
theaudience
Structure text so
that it appeals to the audience
Examples of such
structures: lay meanings, popular terms, snazzy titles, footnotes
For publication,
devices such as display of academic credentials, references, footnotes,
methodology section, familiar academic metaphors and images
Approach depends
on target audience.
Getting support
Types of support
sounding board,
reading drafts, etc.
Trusted friends/colleagues,
one or two people to pass things to
be willing to return
favour!
Formal group
down the line and
for longer projects – i.e. advisory boards
Support group: questions
to consider
Have you reached
a point where you’re ready to talk about your work?
Do you know what
to expect from such a group? Are these expectations realistic?
Are you looking
for students inside your department or outside?
How frequently do
you want to meet?
How large a group
do you want?
Should the group
have a leader or not?
Have you decided
where to look for such a group?
Revising
Types of revision
Reduce
shorten chapters,
sections & paragraphs; condense or move sentences; replace longer
words with shorter ones
Rethink and rearrange
Tone, verb tenses,
parallel structure, word order, emphasis
Reword
According to personal
style, best word…active verbs, rhythm and sound, figurative language
Revision
strategies
One chapter at
a time, then struggle with whole
Consider revising
introduction and conclusion last
When unsure of argument
or shape of chapter, try making outline of what you have
Use outline on a
smaller scale: try reducing each paragraph to a sentence - when you
can’t do it, you’ll discover paragraphs are fuzzy
Leave editing at
individual word level until last (avoid wordsmithing)
Leaving smooth transitions
at later stage
Saddest rule of
editing: less is more
Use your ears -
reading it aloud is a good way to find sentences that tie themselves
in knots
Use your breath:
1-page paragraph is daunting to read
Have a proof reader
look for phrases you’ve overused or repeated arguments
Watch for writing
quirks (e.g., overusing punctuation)
Don’t use complex
words or jargon when simple words will make the point just as well
Read it repeatedly—it
will never be perfect and you will have to quit fiddling with it (hard
for the perfectionists among us…)
Author representation: questions
of concern – i.e. how will you deal with a different social location
How much of the
self is present in the narrative?
What is the authorial
stance of the writer (i.e., location)?
What biases, values
and contexts have shaped narrative?
Have these been
disclosed?
Author may be present
in following ways: epilogue, comments on role as researcher, etc. (reflective
footnotes, interpretive commentaries)
quotes
Short eye catching
quotes àshort
take as little space as possible
Take up little space,
stand out from narrator’s text but verify it
Embedded briefly
quoted phrases – APA has a standard about this
Prepares reader
for a shift in focus
Displays a point
and allows reader to move on
Longer more complex
quotes
Give a sense of
participant’s voice
Use to convey more
complex understandings
Difficult to use
sometimes (e.g., space limitation in publications)
Telling a story
Desirable features of
a qualitative report (Lofland & Lofland)
Basic organization
& presentation – you might want to go by chronology [life in the
day of ____, theme, around an event]
Data and methods
– quality
Analysis – quality
Overall evaluation
- overall value of study
Ways of telling a story
Chronological order
- events as they occurred
Narrator order -
informant’s way of unveiling their life story
Progressive focusing
- from broad context to particulars or vice versa
Day in the life
of - reconstruction of a day
Critical or key
event - focus on one or two groups in interaction
Follow an analytic
framework - impose structure on account
Demonstrate that
there are a number of varying accounts
Qualitative data analysis
software
NVIVO 7
HyperResearch
Atlas/Ti
NUD*IST N6
Ethnograph 5.0
Nov 6,
2008
We will speak about research
design and valid [credible]
Components of the research
design
1. Using philosophical &
theoretical frameworks – describes the planning [proposal] before
the actual research àcould be for a sponsor/donor
2. Writing the introduction
to the study
3. Collecting data
4. Analyzing data
5. Employing standards of quality
& verifying results àmaking sure that our study is credible
6. Writing the narrative report
Different methodological
approaches (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003)
Quantitative:
Tries to exclude
subjectivity, interpretation and context from scientific practice
Requires that data
analysis procedures be ‘objective’, that theories be universally
applicable
Translates requirements
of objectivity and universality into statistical concepts àlooks
for probability sample and looks for statistical significance in order
to generalize
Objectivity corresponds
to concepts of reliability and validity
Universality corresponds
to concept of generalizability – generalizability is paramount to
quantitative research
Qualitative:
Views subjectivity,
interpretation, context as essential elements of research practice
inextricably interwoven into every study
Argues for evaluation
standards consistent with qualitative research paradigm
Replaces quantitative
concepts of reliability, validity, generalizability with qualitative
terms of dependability, credibility, transferability
Standards of qualitative
research (Howe & Eisenhardt, 1998)
Do research questions
drive data collection and analysis rather than opposite?
Are data collection,
analysis completed in technical sense?
Are researcher’s
assumptions made clear?
Does study have
overall warrant?
Does study have
value in informing and improving practice?
Does study protect
confidentiality, privacy and truth telling of participants?
Standards of qualitative
research -(Lincoln, 1995)
Three commitments
in qualitative research paradigm:
To emergent relations
with respondents
To a set of stances
To a vision that
enables and promotes justice
Credability
Having guidelines:
Rigor, communication, way of working toward consensus; these guidelines
also serve to legitimate social science research knowledge
Positionality:
Text should display authenticity about its stance and position of author
– yeah! No hiding your position
Community/context:
All research takes place in, is addressed to and serves purposes of
community in which it is carried out (e.g., feminist thought, black
scholarship, Indigenous studies, etc.)
Voice:
Qualitative or interpretive research must give voice to participants
so that their views are not silenced, disengaged, or marginalized; Multiple
voices need to be heard in a text
Critical subjectivity
Researchers need to have heightened awareness in research process and
work toward personal and social transformation; enables researcher to
understand psychological emotional states before, during and after research
Reciprocity
between the researcher and those being researched; this means intense
sharing, trust and mutuality
Sacredness
Of relationship in research-to-action continuum; this means that researcher
respects collaborative and egalitarian aspects of research and makes
space for the others’ ways of being
Sharing of privilege:
Researcher shares rewards with persons whose lives they portray; sharing
may be in form of royalties or publication rights
“Validity”/Credibility
(or, how might I be wrong?) (Maxwell, 1996, 86-98)
Alternative conceptions
of validity in qualitative research paradigm are a response to concern
with accuracy in empirical sciences.
Do the findings
and conclusions represent reality?
Do constructs measure actual experience?
Validity refers
to correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation,
interpretation or other sort of account.
Types of validity/credibility
in qualitative research
As a component of
your research design, validity consists of strategies you use to rule
out threats to credibility of your study (i.e., ways that you might
be wrong).
Each category of
understanding in qualitative research - description, interpretation,
theory, generalization and evaluation - has its own type of research
question.
Descriptive questions
ask about what actually happened in terms of observable behavior or
events.
Interpretive
questions, in contrast, ask about meaning of these things for people
involved, their thoughts, feelings and intentions.
Theoretical questions
ask about why these things happened, how they can be explained.
Each of the main
types of understanding has distinct “threats” to its validity/credibility
Description
Interpretation
Theory
Main threat in description
Main threat to credible
description, in sense of describing what you saw and heard, is inaccuracy
or incompleteness of data
If your description
of what you were observing, or of interview you conducted, is invalid,
then interpretations or conclusions you draw from these descriptions
are questionable
Audio or video recording
of observations and interviews, and verbatim transcripts of these recordings,
largely solves this problem
observational notes
need to be as detailed, concrete and chronological as possible
Main threat in interpretation
Main threat to credible
interpretation is imposing one’s own framework or meaning rather than
understanding perspectives of people studied and meanings they attach
to their words and actions – i.e. is it your ideas or the participant's
voice being herd?
Most important check
on such credibilitythreats is to seriously and systematically
attempt to learn how participants in study make sense of what’s going
on rather than pigeonholing their words and actions in own framework
Member checking
is one of main strategies for avoiding this threat - this means that
you go back to the participants and ask them if this was meant by them
Main threat in theory
Most serious threat
to theoretical credibilityof an account is not collecting or
paying attention to discrepant data or not considering alternative explanations
or understandings of phenomena you are studying
àso
you can't say it's statistically valid or objective. But it does reflect
what is going on.
Specific threats to credibility:
Researcher bias
Temptation to filter
one’s observations and interpretations through lens overly influenced
by preconceptions and opinions
Limiting selection
of data to fit researcher’s existing theory or preconceptions
Impossible to deal
with these problems by eliminating researcher’s theories, preconceptions
or values - this impossibility is one aspect of inherent reflexivity
of qualitative research
Qualitative research
is primarily concerned with understanding how a particular researcher’s
values, etc. influence conduct and conclusions of study - explaining
your possible biases and how you will deal with these is key piece of your research proposal
Reactivity
Potential effects
of researcher’s presence on setting or individuals studied
Eliminating actual
influence of researcher is impossible - goal in a qualitative study
is to understand it and use it productively
For participant
observation studies, reactivity is generally not as serious a validity
threat– in natural settings, observer is generally much less
of an influence on participants’ behavior than is setting itself
For interviews,
in contrast, reactivity is a powerful and inescapable influence; what
respondent says is always function of interviewer and interview
situation
Although there are
some things to prevent more undesirable consequences of this, such as
avoiding leading questions, trying to minimize your effect is
not meaningful goal for qualitative research
What is important
is to understand how you are influencing what the informant says, and
how this affects validity of inferences you can draw from interview
Procedures for a credible
study
Although methods
and procedures do not guarantee credibility, they are nonetheless essential
to process of ruling out credibility threats and increasing credibility
of your conclusions
The following strategies
primarily operate not by verifying conclusions, but by testing credibility
of your conclusions and existence of potential threats to those conclusions
Fundamental process
in all of these tests is trying to find evidence that challenges your
conclusion, or that makes potential threat implausible
Prolonged engagement and
persistent observation
Build trust, “learning”
the culture, checking for misinformation
Triangulation
Make use of multiple
and different sources, investigators and theories to achieve a comprehensive
picture
Triangulation reduces
risk of chance associations and of systematic biases due to specific
method and allows better assessment of explanation that you develop
Peer review or debriefing
Solicit feedback
from others is a useful strategy for identifying credibility threats,
your own biases, assumptions, flaws in your logic or methods
Try to get feedback
from those familiar with the phenomena or settings you are studying
those who are strangers to situation
Member checks
Researcher takes
analysis, interpretations and conclusions back to respondents who should
be asked to provide alternative language, critical observations and
interpretations
Single most important
way of ruling out possibility of misinterpretation of meaning of what
they say and perspective they have on what is going on
Important not to
assume that participants’ pronouncements are necessarily valid; their
responses should be taken simply as evidence regarding validity of your
account
Searching for discrepant
evidence and negative cases
Identifying and
analyzing discrepant data and negative cases is key part of attempt
to falsify proposed conclusion
Instances that cannot
be accounted for by particular interpretation or explanation can point
up important defects in that account
Basic principle
is that you need to rigorously examine both supporting and discrepant
data to assess whether it is more plausible to retain or modify conclusion,
being aware of all pressures to ignore data that do fit your conclusions
In particularly
difficult cases, best you maybe able to do is to report discrepant evidence
and allow readers to evaluate and draw their own conclusions
Clarifying researcher bias
Reader must be able
to understand researcher’s position
Researcher comments
on past experiences, biases, prejudices and orientations that have shaped
interpretation
Audit trail and external
audits
Document each step,
leave a trail
Have an external
consultant or editor examine process and account, assessing their accuracy
‘Rich’ data
Data that are detailed
and complete enough that they provide a full and revealing picture of
what is going on
Such data counter
dangers of respondent duplicity and observer bias by making it difficult
for respondents to produce data that uniformly support a mistaken conclusion,
just as they make it difficult for observer to restrict his observations
so that she/he sees only what supports her or his prejudices, expectations
Key function of
rich data is to provide a test of one’s developing theories, rather
than simply a source of supporting instances
Generalizability/Transferability
Qualitative researchers
typically study single setting or small number of individuals or sites,
using theoretical or purposive sampling rather than probability sampling
Qualitative researchers
rarely make explicit claims about generalizability of their accounts
but may refer to the circumstances in which the accounts may be transferable
Transferability
Internal transferability,
which is key issue for qualitative case studies, refers to transferability
of conclusion within setting or group studied
External transferability
refers to its transferability beyond that setting or group
Descriptive, interpretive
and theoretical validity of conclusions all depend on their internal
transferability to case as a whole (e.g., if you’re studying patterns
of interaction between teacher and students in single classroom, your
account of classroom as whole is seriously jeopardized if you have selectively
focused on particular students or kinds of interactions and ignored
others
In contrast, external
transferability (generalizability) is often not crucial issue for qualitative
studies
Value of study may
depend on its lack of external transferability in sense of being representative
of a larger population; it may provide account of a setting or population
that is illuminating as extreme case or ideal type
Doesn’t mean qualitative
studies are never generalizable beyond setting or informants studied;
certain characteristics provide credibility to generalizations
Studies often
have face transferability—there is no obvious reason not to believe
that the results apply more generally
Transferability
of studies usually is based not on explicit sampling of a population
to which results can be extended, but on development of theory that
can be extended to other cases
Features that
lend plausibility to transferability from case studies or nonrandom
samples include respondents’ own assessments of transferability, similarity
of dynamics and constraints to other situations, presumed depth or universality
of phenomenon studied, and corroboration from other studies
Criteria for the justifiable
use of subjectivity to interpret data
Transparency
Means that other
researchers can know steps by which you arrived at your interpretation;
does not imply agreement--only that they know how you arrived at it.
If your interpretation of data is transparent, it means that it is justifiable,
that you did not simply make it up to suit yourself.
Communicability
Means that your
themes and constructs can be understood by, and make sense to, other
researchers and to the participants themselves; does not imply
agreement, only that what you have done can be understood
Coherence
Means that your
theoretical constructs fit together and allow you to tell a coherent
story; does not mean that story you develop is only one possible,
but rather that your story helps to organize data
Questions for discussion on standards, verification, credibility
How would you judge a qualitative
study?
voice of participants
is central
stated limitations
stated methods,
process (how study evolved)
honest reflections
of researcher
match between persons
selected and research topic
connections to field
(builds on or questions what is happening)
well supported claims
negotiated/reflective
piece (were your questions answered; if not, why not/ how did you revise
or account for this?
curiosity
well written
How do you know an account
is accurate?
have a colleague
review it
have participants
review it
use case examples
(in interviews)
ask questions in
different ways (language, etc.)
clarify and/or rephrase
in interviews
What makes for a credible
study?
allow participants
space to discuss their experiences
check back with
participants
note process and
methods
solicit information
from colleagues and ‘knowledgeable’ persons
reflect on your
past and present experiences/social locations/beliefs
develop a transparent
process
methods (recorded
interviews, transcription and use of quotes)
extended involvement….trust
discuss limitations
of study
And still more questions
to consider…
How do you know
if the study is valid/credible? To whom?
What is your position
or social location (insider/outsider)? How does this affect your thinking?
How have you addressed
power? Inclusion? Diversity?
November 13, 2008
Participatory Action
Research/ Community Action Research
Fusing research and social justice
Participant Action Research
-Some definitions of PAR
A method of social
investigation of problems involving participation of “ordinary”
people in problem posing and solving
An educational
process for the co-participants (researcher and participants) who
analyze the structural causes of named problems through collective
discussion and interaction
A way for researchers
and people marginalized from access to resources to join in solidarity
to take collective action, both short and long term, for (radical)
social change
Community Action Research
-Some definitions of CAR
Useful, action-oriented,
community-based research approach for change
An approach to research
that can promote self-discovery of individuals, build communities, serve
as catalyst for social change
A value-driven activity
founded upon integrated set of concepts that, taken together, provide
direction for planning, implementation, and utilization of CAR
PAR is not
“a” research method
PAR is a “systematic
investigation, with the collaboration of those affected by the issue
being studied, for the purposes of education and taking action or effecting
social change”
PAR is an approach
to research partnerships and applications.
PAR is about power
whose location in various stages of the research process is key.
PARTICIPATORY ACTION
RESEARCH
GOALS
Answering questions of daily
survival and providing insights & concrete changes into the daily
struggles of life and living of ordinary people in struggle
METHODOLOGY
Challenges myth of neutrality
and objectivity; Emphasizes subjectivity, involvement, consensual validation
in data collection& analysis
RESOURCE
Generated by people traditionally
excluded from participating in knowledge production & decision making;
institutional assistance through grants, loans and subsidies, initiated
by the people themselves
Comparing
Participatory & Conventional Research
PAR
“Conventional”
Research
What
is the
research for?
Action
Understanding
Who
is the research for?
Local people=
Participants
Institutional, personal &
professional interests
àeven
though you might have community participants, it is hierarchical
Whose
knowledge counts?
All participants
Scientists’
Researchers’
àeven
though you might have community participants, it is hierarchical
Topic
choice influenced by
Local priorities
$, institutions, professions
PAR
“Conventional” Research
Methodology
chosen for?
Empowerment, mutual learning
Disciplinary conventions,
“objectivity”, “truth”
WHO
TAKES PART IN THESE
STAGES OF THE RESEARCH
PROCESS?
Problem
identification
Local people/participants
Researcher
Data
collection
Local people/participants
Researcher, analyst
Interpretation
Local concepts & frameworks
Disciplinary concepts and
frameworks
Analysis
Local people/participants
Researcher
Presentation
of findings
Locally accessible & useful;
Multiple contexts including policy makers
By researcher to other academics,
funding bodies, policy makers
Action
on findings
Integral to process
Separate and may not happen
Who
takes action?
Local people/participants,
with or without external support
External agencies
Who
“owns” the results?
Shared
Typically the researcher
What
is emphasized?
Process
Outcomes
àthis
approach allows for people to take ownership over the project at hand
Problem formulation
and research questions explored using qualitative research
literature review
– introduce to topic – and explain why you need qualitative research
for this
basic research design
Data collection
data analysis
ways to address
ethical issues
strategies to address
credibility
discuss of future
research using quantitative research
writing style –
10 points
-identify areas of interest
-acquaint reader with what
has already been read
-introduce key concepts –with
definitions/concepts/what has already been studied
àlack
of info/inadequacy/knowledge gap
--
Purpose – connection
b/w purpose and info
àthen
discuss research question
àquestion
discuss in more detail once purpose/context of design have been discussed
àshould
remain adaptable to implications of other parts of the design
Research question
-Should be open ended
ànon-directional
and evolving ài.e.
perhaps they do not see X as a problem – “how does culture affect
family therapy”
-restate the question – what
and how ànot
why
end
why you want to
do the study àreflective
Co-Participant/ Co-Researcher
Community participants
engage in all stages of research process (decision to do research, identification
of research focus, selection of methods, implementation of inquiry,
analysis, interpretation, synthesis, verification of conclusions, and
decisions to take action). Attention is given to reduce barriers to
participation, especially for those who have been excluded or under-represented
in past.
Formally trained
researcher stands with and alongside community, not outside as an objective
observer or external consultant. Researcher contributes expertise when
needed as a participant in process. Community participants contribute
their physical and/or intellectual resources to research process.
November 20, 2008
Sampling:
purposeful/theoretical
sampling – think about who you want
convenience sampling
– based on what is available – but you also have to note the downsides
of it
snowball sampling
– find a suitable respondent for further contacts
data collecting
individual interviewing
key informants
focus groups
visual data
participant observation
reviewing documents
writing a personal
field log
àby
using more kinds of data collection, one increases triangulation
Data analysis
open coding (separate/non-applied
codes)
line-by-line coding
– not theme
constant comparison
– grounded theory
initial codes –
first steps
analytic codes [more
precise codes]
pre-determined themes
[theme of the paper]
Resolving field issues:
research ethics
1) Ethics of concealment: deception
& disclosure
range from disclosure
- neglect – deceit
neglect (not telling
people they are being observed)
full deceit (concealing
the study & investigator’s role)
2) Confidentiality & privacy
no guarantee of
complete anonymity - respondents are known
never reveal the
identity of respondents
exception to this
is a legal requirement (e.g., child abuse protection)
3) Distress & emotional
harm
principle of least
harm
make arrangements
for professional referral prior to your study
refer but leave
service provision to others
Informed consent:
research with vulnerable populations
Elements
of informed consent:
description of study
&procedures (duration, interviews)
identification of
researcher and organization (include address & phone number for
future contacts)
assurance of voluntary
participation
assurance of confidentiality
knowledge of risks/benefits
associated with the study
special precautions
for persons under 18
signed consent may
be waived to protect identities & individuals
Have 2 copies
when consent is given (for you and for respondent).
5. Coercion & deformed
consent
be aware of the
potential for coercion
assure respondents
they can withdraw at any time
researchers should
avoid studying clients & colleagues
6. Incentives & payback
most funded studies
involve remuneration for respondents’ time
too little is
not an incentive; too much risks coercion
7. Risks to the researcher
emotional concern
- ups & downs of doing fieldwork
exhaustion
reactions/involvements
- comments may strike a nerve
threats to physical
safety, innuendos
8. Power
consider ethical
implications of power relations
pay attention
to power as a service provider (research linked to agencies)
Specific threats to credibility:
Researcher bias
Temptation to filter
one’s observations and interpretations through lens overly influenced
by preconceptions and opinions
Limiting selection
of data to fit researcher’s existing theory or preconceptions
Impossible to deal
with these problems by eliminating researcher’s theories, preconceptions
or values - this impossibility is one aspect of inherent reflexivity
of qualitative research
Qualitative research
is primarily concerned with understanding how a particular researcher’s
values, etc. influence conduct and conclusions of study - explaining
your possible biases and how you will deal with these is key piece of your research proposal
Procedures
for a credible study
Prolonged engagement
and persistent observation
Build trust, “learning”
the culture, checking for misinformation
Triangulation
Make use of multiple
and different sources, investigators and theories to achieve a comprehensive
picture
Triangulation
reduces risk of chance associations and of systematic biases due to
specific method and allows better assessment of explanation that you
develop
Peer review or debriefing
Solicit feedback
from others is a useful strategy for identifying credibility threats,
your own biases, assumptions, flaws in your logic or methods
Try to get feedback
from those familiar with the phenomena or settings you are studying
those who are strangers to situation
Member checks
Researcher takes
analysis, interpretations and conclusions back to respondents who should
be asked to provide alternative language, critical observations and
interpretations
Single most important
way of ruling out possibility of misinterpretation of meaning of what
they say and perspective they have on what is going on
Important not
to assume that participants’ pronouncements are necessarily valid;
their responses should be taken simply as evidence regarding validity
of your account
Searching for discrepant
evidence and negative cases
Identifying and
analyzing discrepant data and negative cases is key part of attempt
to falsify proposed conclusion
Instances that
cannot be accounted for by particular interpretation or explanation
can point up important defects in that account
Basic principle
is that you need to rigorously examine both supporting and discrepant
data to assess whether it is more plausible to retain or modify conclusion,
being aware of all pressures to ignore data that do fit your conclusions
In particularly
difficult cases, best you maybe able to do is to report discrepant evidence
and allow readers to evaluate and draw their own conclusions
Clarifying researcher
bias
Reader must be
able to understand researcher’s position
Researcher comments
on past experiences, biases, prejudices and orientations that have shaped
interpretation
Audit trail and
external audits
Document each
step, leave a trail
Have an external
consultant or editor examine process and account, assessing their accuracy
‘Rich’ data
Data that are
detailed and complete enough that they provide a full and revealing
picture of what is going on
Such data counter
dangers of respondent duplicity and observer bias by making it difficult
for respondents to produce data that uniformly support a mistaken conclusion,
just as they make it difficult for observer to restrict his observations
so that she/he sees only what supports her or his prejudices, expectations
Key function of
rich data is to provide a test of one’s developing theories, rather
than simply a source of supporting instances
APA:
Number pages
No contraction
Left justification ànot
full
No spaces between the paragraphs
– not even before subtitle