Research Methods PDF

**Intro and Theme 1- Research** **INTRODUCTION** **What does ethical research mean?** Any research involving humans, their tissue, their data, requires research ethics approval. - Research that has statutory approval **Four principles (Tracy's) of ethical research:** 1. Procedural 2. Situ...

**Intro and Theme 1- Research** **INTRODUCTION** **What does ethical research mean?** Any research involving humans, their tissue, their data, requires research ethics approval. - Research that has statutory approval **Four principles (Tracy's) of ethical research:** 1. Procedural 2. Situational 3. Relational 4. Exiting 1. **Procedural ethics:** [Components the Procedural Principle:] - Beneficence - maximise benefits - Maleficence - minimise harm - Autonomy - Justice - Consent - Protection of data & risk assessment - Doing your study as you said you would, not deviating your protocol - Processes and Ethical Research guidelines - To gain approval for your study - Autonomy or respect for a person: respect decisions of participants. Autonomy respected or informed consent. Have clear Knowledge of what will happen. Also, check understanding and use consent forms, and can withdraw. - Maximise benefits (Beneficence) and minimise harm (Maleficence avoiding fraud and inaccuracy - Justice: Morally, fairly. Treat people according to what Is moral. Asking who should receive its benefits and who should receive its burdens (often lower SES recruited - compromised- for benefit of higher SES) 2. **Situational ethics:** What comes up in the field while collecting data Recruitment, data collection and writing up Requires judgement in the moment and critical thinking - Comes up while doing research. Unpredictable, ethical moments come up. Difficult to anticipate and can surprise. Arise from context. 3. **Relational ethics:** Self-consciousness on actions and potential impact on others Keep promises Act with compassion - Self-consciousness & mindfulness of actions - Ethical self-consciousness in which researchers respect reciprocal relationships and are mindful of their actions and behaviours & the consequences that they may have and wider community. Think about what you\'re there for. 4. **Exiting ethics:** - How will it be distributed and perceived? Does it reflect the research? - Occurs once the researchers leave the field and share their results - Moral responsibility to interrogate our findings and anticipate how it may be received or distorted - Ethical issues beyond data collection - Responsibility to consider if research findings can cause more harm than good. Unintended consequences are avoided, considering people might misinterpret or misread. **Where do qualitative research questions come from?** - Real life events - Experiences everyday situations, studies people natural/ everyday situations - Helps better understand patients as people and how the're living with their illnesses - Learn from their stories - Describes social phenomena in words rather than numbers - Doesn't generalise findings - Context Important. - Explain social phenomena and answer questions - Knowledge to improve care - Generating knowledge - Explore, describe, Understand, Discover - Can use ideas from other literatures but have to ensure you have not done something someone else has already done. **Reflexivity and Transparency** [What is reflexivity? ] - Recognising the influence of the researcher in the research process - How our experience, gender, profession, social status, ethnicity, culture... influence the choices made in the study - Reflexivity considers our presence in research and makes its presence as transparent as possible to others. **[Practical Steps in reflexivity]** - [Reflexive diary]/ fieldnotes - [Critical friend]/ discussions [Reflexive diary/ fieldnotes:] Ideas, thoughts, reflections, Information about self and method. Raises questions and ideas, and considers what may be influencing Ideas. Journal Includes information about self and method Thoughts and reflections on activities and responses/behaviours Raises questions and ideas Considers what may be influencing ideas [Critical friend/ discussions]: Someone to - challenge you - to discuss - highlight **Overall things to consider are:** - The choice of the research question - Your position as a researcher - Your interaction with participants - Reciprocity - Managing self - Representation - Your choice of the research question - Your position as a researcher, - Your interaction with participants (what do you share with participants, that may possibly build rapport) - Reciprocity (exchange of ideas b/t you and participant and how did that impact interaction) - Managing self when we are researchers. We have many things to portray and sensing what they are and how they link with broader self is helpful - Representation (by managing ourselves we choose what we want to represent and what we don\'t). We might represent as students and someone learning which gives different interaction. Do you represent yourself in a particular way and how do you make those decisions CRITICISM of reflexive thinking: - Thinking you should be the centre of the research [Other points to consider: ] - Embodied roles (being a student and daughter) - Embodied gender (marital status, ethnicity and age) - Embodying emotion - Embodied presences (being the body) [Transparency: an example:] Example of reflexivity in a qualitative research study (a study of women's experiences after surgery for obesity (Ogden et al., 2006; p277): "In the case of the present study it is acknowledged that whilst none of the researchers are either obese or have had surgery all had gained sufficient experience of obese patients through clinical and research work to believe that severe obesity was not a desirable condition. \...As both the quantitative and qualitative studies progressed (Ogden et al., 2005) all researchers became increasingly impressed with the effectiveness of surgery \...It is therefore possible that such views influenced the nature of the analysis. However, \... the impact \[of surgery\] upon the individual's broader psychological state and their sense of control... was surprising". Extract from reflexive diary: "Sat in the car fuming once again. This is so crap for women. How is it that a man can just leave his wife, does what he pleases with no social reprimand and she is left to manage the fields and do all the work in order to pay for his life with the new wife. This is grossly unfair. Once again I find myself slightly hateful towards this man -- still thinking he was treating his wife a lot like a machine. I must take care of these thoughts, I am all over them, but it is hard to not want to punch him." "When removed from the constraints of the field those emotions lingered and grew, directly influencing what I chose to report. These stories were a minority finding, but I chose to present the case of one of these women while others were omitted, writing 'because of its salience to the individual affected it is important to report' (Norris, Allotey and Barrett 2012:832). While I am confident of the importance of these stories for the participant, a more honest presentation would also have acknowledged their importance to me, one which my embodied frustration forced me to consider, but also one which is born from my unique embodied presence and negotiations of status within the community." **Summary:** - Reflexivity is generally considered an important part of qualitative research. Should consider the entire research process. A way to consider influence not remove bias. Requires thinking **[Theoretical Perspectives]** [Dimensions in qualitative research are (MEMO):] 1. Ontology 2. Epistemology 3. Methodology 4. Methods [Theoretical frameworks:] - Positivism - Post-positivism - Constructionism - Interpretivism  [Big Q (qualitative)] - sits in paradigm of qualitative (ontological and epistemological multiple truths) - Generally inductive - Seeks to explore meanings, understand and interpret Sometime produces knowledge of a more general nature [Small q (quantitative)] - Realist/post positivist, doesn\'t sit in qualitative paradigm - Generally deductive: top down, have theory and want to test If Its true, so sits on quantitative because looking for a truth that is measurable - Have an idea or what you want to check e.a. How many people said this versus what people said \- Uses bits of qualitative methods to respond to quantitative questions e.g. in questionnaire with some open ended questions and uses content analysis (Numerical) +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Inductive** | **Deductive** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | - Bottom to top approach | - Top to bottom | | | | | - Starts with no hypothesis | - Starts with hypothesis | | | | | - Specific to general | - General to specific | | | | | - I.e Inductive Reasoning: Most | - I.e Deductive Reasoning: All | | of our snowstorms come from | of our snowstorms come from | | the north. It\'s starting to | the north. | | snow. This snowstorm must be | | | coming from the north. | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ 1. **[Ontology]** - [**What** can be known about reality] (the world) - What is it possible to know about the world? **[Ontological positions]** **Realist:** - Quantitative. - Single truth/reality exists, Independent of experiences and understanding. Can be accessed, observed & measured. E.g.A pile of leaves exist, they are happiness Ex. A water bottle exists, it's a water bottle **Critical realist**: - Underpins much qualitative research. - A real and knowledgeable world exists but [can\'t be accessed directly]. [Only knowable through socially constructed meanings. ] - A reality exists but not accessible directly\*\* E.g. Happiness may exist, but we can only understand it through a pile of leaves E.x It's a spherical shaped hollow device in the real world - to me it's a drinking device, but in 3rd world country it's a digging device **Contextualist:** - Qualitative. - Does [not assume a single reality], but interest in understanding "the truth" so has a realist dimension. - No single reality but try to understand a truth from context\*\* E.g. There is not one but many happinesses E.x Based on context (where I'm looking at it from - elephant butt vs trunk) you create the "truth" - trunk = snake, butt=piece of meat **Relativist:** - Qualitative. - No single truth. - Multiple constructed realities exist. - Reality or truth only exists in relation to culture, society, and historical concepts. E.g. Lots of happiness and they are influenced by history. cultures\... **[Epistemology]** = The theory of [knowledge ] - **How** is it possible to know about the world? - What counts as knowledge? - What is valid knowledge? - [How can I obtain knowledge]? - How do I produce knowledge?  \- Orientations towards knowledge \- Your epistemological assumptions tells you what you believe as knowledge **[Epistemological Positions:]** **Realist:** - Assumes it is possible to [obtain truth] or knowledge [through scientific method] E.g: A pile of leave exists, we can measure them E.x - My theory is that this is a water bottle (hypothesis), test by adding water in it, collecting data (material, drinking ability)\... **Critical realist:** - Real world exists but [can\'t be accessed] perfectly. - Results (Knowledge) will always be imperfect and influenced by the contexts in which research took place. E.g: a pile of leaves may exist and that might help us access happiness but what may not be able to totally capture it E.x - it\'s a spherical hollow device, but If I test it here vs test it in the 3rd world country, I will get a different result of what it is. **Contextualist:** - Knowledge is constructed from contexts. - [No single method to get truth but knowledge will be true in certain contexts]. E.g things loved by you are happiness and can be Known at a specific time and place E.x Based on context (where I'm looking at it from - elephant butt vs trunk) I can see my truth and evaluated as that - trunk = snake, butt=piece of meat **Relativist (constructionism):** - There is [no knowledge/truth waiting to be discovered], only what we construct through the contexts in which we live - [Socially informed] and therefore possibly shared \*side note: if critiquing qualitative research, look for coherence between ontological and epistemological approaches **[Methodology]** = Type of study **[Method]** = How to gather data for your type of study  +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **[Methodology]{.unde | **[Definition]{.under | **[Method of data | | rline}** | line}** | collection]{.underlin | | | | e}** | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Ethnography** | -Study of social | Participant | | | interaction, | Observation, | | | behaviours and | interviews, images, | | | perceptions within | documents, focus | | | groups. | groups | | | | | | | -Linked to | | | | anthropology and | | | | sociology. | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Phenomenology** | Understanding human | Interviews, | | | experience and the | participant diaries | | | lifeworld. | | | | | | | | -Linked to | | | | Philosophy, | | | | psychology & | | | | sociology | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Grounded Theory** | Study of social | Interviews | | | phenomena in order to | | | | explain a process or | | | | develop a theory. | | | | [Iterative]{.underlin | | | | e} | | | | research approach | | | | | | | | \- Constant | | | | comparison (until | | | | saturation) | | | | | | | | \- Linked to | | | | sociology. | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Narrative** | Data are stories. | Interviews, archival | | | | material and | | | Focus on personal | documents, journals | | | meanings and how | | | | things are said with | | | | reference to socially | | | | or culturally | | | | relevant resources. | | | | | | | | -Humanities, | | | | psychology. | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Action Research** | Collaborative, | observation. | | | egalitarian programme | interviews, images, | | | of research, emphasis | documents, focus | | | on taking action on | groups | | | an issue. | | | | | | | | -Social psychology | | | | origins. | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ **[Theoretical Perspectives]** Note: deductive approaches aim at testing an existing theory (Generates a hypothesis) and inductive aims at developing a theory and more common in qualitative research. +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **[Theory | **[Aim]{. | **[Method | **[Ontolo | **[Episte | **[Resear | | ]{.underl | underline | s]{.under | gy]{.unde | mology]{. | cher]{.un | | ine}** | }** | line}** | rline}** | underline | derline}* | | | | | | }** | * | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Positiv | -Truth | -*Quantit | Realist | Assumes | -Aims to | | ism** | seeking | ative* | | it is | be | | | | (experime | -- single | possible | neutral, | | | -Scientif | ntal) | real | to obtain | objective | | | ic | | world | truth or | , | | | method | -Deductiv | | knowledge | bias | | | (hypothes | e | | through | eliminate | | | is | | | scientifi | d, | | | driven) | -Measure | | c | not | | | | | | method | accounted | | | -Generali | -Large | | | for | | | sability | samples | | | | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Post-po | Seeks the | *Quantita | Critical | Critical | Aims to | | sitivism* | Truth but | tive | realist: | realist: | remove | | * | access to | or | A | objective | bias and | | | truth is | qualitati | Realityex | reality | subjectiv | | | imperfect | ve* | ists | is [only | ity, | | | | | but can't | partially | neutralit | | | \- | Mainly | be | knowable] | y, | | | Approxima | quantitat | accessed | {.underli | limit | | | te | ive | perfectly | ne} | interacti | | | truth | -- | (since | | on | | | | measureme | based on | -[null | | | | | nt | social | hypothesi | | | | | focused - | construct | s]{.under | | | | | logical | ) | line} | | | | | analysis | | | | | | | | | -Partial | | | | | | | Results | | | | | | | only | | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Constru | -[Multipl | *-Qualita | -No | -No one | -Research | | ctivism** | e]{.under | tive* | knowledge | reality | er | | | line} | | of | | and | | | construct | -inductiv | pre-exist | -[social | research | | | ed | e | ing | interacti | contexts | | | realities | | realities | ons | have | | | or truth | | to be | and other | impact | | | | | discovere | context]{ | -Co-const | | | -[Sociall | | d |.underlin | ruction | | | y | | | e} | of | | | construct | | -As | | knowledge | | | ed]{.unde | | contexts | | | | | rline} | | change so | | | | | & context | | does our | | | | | specific | | knowledge | | | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Context | -Knowledg | *Qualitat | Contextua | Contextua | \- Part | | ualism** | e | ive* | list | list | of | | | influence | | | | context | | ("Constru | d | | -No | No single | and | | ctivism | by | | single | method to | therefore | | light") | context, | | reality | get truth | data | | | researche | | but try | but | collectio | | | r, | | to | knowledge | n | | | is | | understan | will be | process | | | | | d | true in | | | | local, | | a truth | certain | -[Co-cons | | | provision | | from | contexts. | truction] | | | al | | context | | {.underli | | | and | | | | ne} | | | situated | | | | of data | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -Value | | | | | | | laden | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Interpr | -Experien | *Qualitat | Relativis | -knowledg | -Research | | etivism** | tial | ive* | t | e | findings | | | | | ontology | is | are | | | -The | Focus | | co-create | collabora | | | world is | on | | d | tion | | | interpret | [particul | | | with | | | ed | arity]{.u | | | researche | | | through | nderline} | | | rs | | | our | (more on | | | and | | | experienc | individua | | | participa | | | e | l | | | nts. | | | of it. | experienc | | | -Ongoing | | | | e) | | | process | | | -How | | | | of asking | | | understan | | | | questions | | | d/make | Naturalis | | | :hermeneu | | | sense of | tic | | | tic | | | the world | methods | | | circle | | | based | | | | | | | social, | -hermeneu | | | -context | | | cultural, | tic | | | of | | | influence | circle | | | research | | | s | | | | | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Critica | Highlight | *formed | | -Feminism | -collabor | | l | inequalit | from | | , | ative | | theories* | ies/ | [social | | race, | | | * | special | justice | | Queer | -Consider | | | social | theory]{. | | theories | Power | | | issue | underline | | | between | | | | } | | | researche | | | -Goal is | in | | | r | | | to | interpret | | | and | | | instigate | ivism* | | | participa | | | change | | | | nts | | | | -Focused | | | | | | | on | | | Must | | | | specific | | | avoid | | | | social | | | exploitat | | | | issue & | | | ion/ | | | | marginali | | | distortio | | | | sed | | | n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Reflexivi | | | | | | | ty | | | | | | | important | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Realism | One true | -*Quantit | | -Reality | -Objectiv | | ** | reality | ative* | | is | ity | | (naive | exists | | | accessibl | | | realism) | | | | e | -Research | | | | | | and can | er | | | | | | be | [neutral/ | | | | | | [measured | remove | | | | | | ]{.underl | bias]{.un | | | | | | ine} | derline} | | | | | | and | | | | | | | observed | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \- Linked | | | | | | | with | | | | | | | positivis | | | | | | | m | | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Critica | [Real | | | Reality | -Attempts | | l | world | | | exists | for | | Realism** | exists]{. | | | but | objectivi | | | underline | | | difficult | ty | | | } | | | to access | | | | but | | | since | -[Accept | | | [can\'t | | | influence | interfere | | | be | | | d | nce]{.und | | | accessed] | | | by social | erline} | | | {.underli | | | context | | | | ne} | | | | [-Try to | | | perfectly | | | -Knowable | limit | | | | | | but | bias]{.un | | | | | | incomplet | derline} | | | | | | e | | | | | | | and only | | | | | | | partially | | | | | | | understoo | | | | | | | d | | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Relativ | -no one | *Qualitat | | -multiple | Part of | | ism** | truth | ive* | | truths as | context | | | | | | understoo | and | | | -multiple | | | d | therefore | | | construct | | | by the | data | | | ed | | | individua | collectio | | | realities | | | l | n | | | | | | | process | | | -Truth is | | | -Consider | | | | relative | | | ation | | | | to the | | | of | Co-constr | | | individua | | | context | uction | | | l | | | | of data | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Value | | | | | | | laden | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ | **Social | -understa | *Qualitat | | | | | construct | nd | ive* | | | | | ivism** | lived | | | | | | | experienc | | | | | | | e | | | | | | | from | | | | | | | those who | | | | | | | live it | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -Shared | | | | | | | understan | | | | | | | dings | | | | | | | -Social | | | | | | | construct | | | | | | | ion | | | | | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ **Positivism:** *Quantitative* - Scientific method - Hypothesis driven - Apriori development of hypotheses which are then testable - deductive - Truth seeking: measurement and observation - Generalisability: results are generalizable, lead to prediction [Ontological position:] - Realist -- single real world which is knowable [Researcher: ] - Researcher aims to be neutral, objective, bias eliminated. - Researcher should not impact result - [Do not have to account for researcher position] - If researcher interferes then study considered flawed [Methods: ] Quantitative -- experimental design Deductive (test theory) Must be able to measure - empiricism Large samples Tested statistically BUT... Generally accepted that what we know is partial Particularly true in human sciences Therefore pure positivist research is limited **Post-positivism:** *quantitative or qualitative* - [Seeks the Truth but access to truth is imperfect ] - Results approximate truth but never perfect or complete explanation Epistemological position - Sits within critical realist epistemological position - Methods to learn about the world are flawed - Therefore objective reality is only partially knowable - Aim is to falsify a theory -- test null hypothesis - Results are always partial Researcher: - Aims to remove bias and subjectivity to get to the truth - Researcher neutrality important - limit interaction and distance themselves [Methods: ] - Mainly quantitative -- measurement focused - Systematic use of methods - Logical objective analysis - Attempt to remove bias to get at truth **Constructivism and Contextualism :** *Qualitative* - Multiple constructed realities or truths, which cannot be quantified. - [Knowledge is Socially constructed] in sociohistorical context - Inductive - Language is important because each individual describes in own terms - Closely related interpretivism [Ontology: ] - No one truth - [Realities are created and understood through social interactions and other context] [Epistemological approach: ] - No knowledge of pre-existing realities to be discovered - What we know is constructed by the context in which we live - As contexts change so does our knowledge Goal is to understand the meaning and knowledge socially constructed. [Researcher] - Finding (Interpretations) are context specific: researcher and research contexts have impact on all aspects of research including analysis. Co-construction of knowledge (including from researcher) **Contextualism** -- "constructivism light" - Knowledge is influenced by context and researcher - Knowledge is local, provisional and situated - [Argue that knowledge can be true or valid in certain contexts] [Researcher ] - Part of context and therefore data collection process - Co-construction of data - Value laden - [Values of the researcher and research contexts impact] on all aspects of the research. **Interpretivism** *Qualitative* - The world is interpreted through our experience of it. Individuals experience the world differently. - Aim to understand how individuals make sense of their lives. - Goal - understanding experience of and from those who live it - Focus is [experiential] - Multiple aspects -- culture, history, social encounters, geography -- [influences how a person experiences and understands their world] - Findings (interpretations) are context specific. - Interpretivism and constructivism similar because try to understand lived experience from those who live it, [understanding] something rather than explaining - [Meanings. Views. perspectives or individuals] are the focus. And participants interpretations are prioritised - Different from constructivism because constructivists are more interested in social world\*\* [Epistemological approach: ] - That knowledge is co-created [What we know is a function of our interaction w/culture,social setting and other people.] Science theories and social justice theories - Social science theories within interpretive framework : shape how researcher views problems, selects method and interprets data (Includes post positivism, interpretivism, etc) - Social justice theory (critical theory. see below: calling for change about a social theory [Ontology:] - Relativist ontology: - There is no knowledge/truth waiting to be discovered, only what we construct through the contexts in which we live. - Multiple truths, multiple understandings - Socially informed and therefore possibly shared [Methods:] [Focus on particularity ] Naturalistic methods [Researcher:] Research findings are collaboration with researchers and participants. Ongoing process of asking questions (e.g researcher wIll ask further questions depending on the participant response- Known as hermeneutic circle) - Values of the researcher and research contexts impact on all aspects of the research. **Critical theories** *formed from social justice theory in interpretivism* - Focused on specific social issue - Focus on people who are marginalised (mistreated) - [Consider that social, cultural and political influences have important impact on people's lives ] - Concern with equity and justice - This informs the lens/theory taken - General but also specific focus Goals: - [Understand and highlight how is] knowledge and power organised in society and institutions - Highlight inequalities that result - Applied at micro (e.g. individual)(specific) or macro (e.g. institutional level)(general) level - [Goal is to instigate change] Feminism Women's experience in everyday lives and how institutions/society influence this Aim is to understand what impacts everyday lives, highlight inequity and inequality in order to reduce oppression based on gender Use whatever methods are appropriate to respond to research question Critical race theory Considers race as a social construction Aim to identify, understand and undo the root causes of racism Not just individual attitudes but also structural, societal norms and institutional policies Critical race in health research highlights and forces focus on link between structural racism and poor health Queer theory Very diverse field Focuses on identity -- challenging sense of 'normal' binary and fixed descriptions Encourages reconsideration of normative concepts of The body Family Gender Reproductive politics Considers explicit and implicit bias in healthcare Critical disability theory Challenges the views that physical, mental and sensory differences are things that need correcting and are a reason for exclusion Look for democratic social changes - challenge disabling practices in the society, the environment and our attitudes Seeks equality and equity for ppl with disabilities in all aspect of life [Researcher ] Seen as a [collaborative activity ] [Power] between researcher and participants important to consider Must avoid exploitation/ distortion Reflexivity important **Realism & Critical Realism:** [Ontology:] **Naïve realism (Realism)** - One true reality exists **Critical realism** - Real and knowable world, but cannot be known completely - Real world exists but [can\'t be accessed] perfectly [Epistemology: ] **Naïve realism** - [Reality is accessible] and [can be measured] and observed - Need appropriate methods - [Linked with positivism (quantitative] approaches) **Critical realism** - Reality while existing is influenced by social, cultural and historical context - Knowable but incomplete and only partially understood - Reality exists but difficult to access since influenced by social context [Researcher:] **Naïve realism** - Objectivity - Researcher neutral/ remove bias **Critical realism** - Attempts for objectivity - [Accept interference] - [Try to limit bias] **Relativism** [Ontology:] - no one truth - [multiple constructed realities] - [Truth is relative to the individual] [Epistemology: ] - Consider multiple truths as understood by the individual - Consideration of [contex]t essential [Researcher:] Part of context and therefore data collection process Co-construction of data Value laden **Social constructivism** - Goal -- [understand lived experience from those who live it] - Shared understandings -- social construction - Inductive [Ontology:] - Relativist - There is no knowledge/truth waiting to be discovered, only what we construct through the contexts in which we live. - [Multiple truths, multiple understandings] - Socially informed and therefore possibly shared [Method:] - Aim to gather experience -- privilege participants perspectives - How you collect data not fixed - Focus on language use [Researcher:] - Part of data collection process - [Co-construction] of data - Value laden - Reflexivity **[Methodologies]** [Research design or approach ] [Framework] which underpins the research process How do I choose which one? Match between problem/ [research question] and methodological approach Personal experience and philosophy Context of research Methodology considers the specific approach to qualitative research Different approaches relate to different theoretical perspectives, research questions and traditions Choice of methodology has implication for methods of research delivery  **ETHNOGRAPHY** *Ethno = people Graphy = write/ describe something* [ Description of a group], culture or community (cultural or social group) Focus on way of life/behaviour which is socially constructed and transmitted - Ethnographers might use a particular lens ie. feminism, philosophical side - Can look at medical culture vs everyday culture and how they interact. - from insider\'s point of view ([emic]) but also looking as an outsider ([etic]) - researchers need to be cultural strangers, get up close but remain on margin - Inductive :from bottom up, not going to see what you think is happening [Ethnography is ] An approach A method? A product of research **The ethnographic approach** Rather than studying people from the outside, you learn from people [from the inside ] Being inside but looking as an outsider Inductive -- start with no hypothesis [Holistic] -- focus on relations among activities, not on single tasks. Study people in [natural habitats] [-Describing and interpreting cultural or social group] **Fieldwork** - Study people in own environment - Observe relationships b/t people and the objects they use. [Collecting 'rich' data for 'thick' description] - "Collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issues of focus" Hammersley & Atkinson 1995 Use multiple methods Interviews -- formal and informal Participant observation [Collect artefacts] -- anything which has significance -- papers, cloth, symbolic items... [Triangulate] Reflexivity - Data via interviews (formal and informal), participant observation, collect artefacts (Cloth, symbolic items) - Triangulate: different sources of info pinpoint, together should describe something [Advantages:] [Real world data ] [In-depth] understanding of people Discovery [Potential issues:] Ethics and consent Who we are(?) [Over involvement] [Power ] [ Time ] Messy data Context very specific **What kind of questions can it answer?** - [Exploratory], often when no other data exists - [Understanding group cultures] - Exploring behavioural interactions between groups **GROUNDED THEORY** An approach to [systematically] [generate a theory] from [detailed primary data] (data field) It is primarily inductive Data can be diverse but usually involves interviews, possibly supplemented by observation Its aim is to [seek explanation] not description Focus on social processes - [Generalizable] theory of an experience - Qualitative but sits closer to small q (quant) since trying to gather a theory - [Focus is on social processes] (originally comes from sociology) - Originally influenced by symbolic interactionism, it emphasises the influence people have on each other through symbols. One of the most potent symbols is [language]. Originally from sociology -- exploring healthcare professionals' interaction with dying patients Key names -- Glaser, Strauss,(discovered/ created and are more quantitative) Corbin, Charmaz Different variations evolved over time Originally influenced by symbolic interactionism Charmaz moved more into constructivism (more Qualitative) [Principles of grounded theory] Concomitant (related) data collection and analysis Theoretical sampling [Sampling guided by emerging ideas ] [ Constant comparison ] [Constantly looking between different data and what they derive from each other] Basically interviewing one person and analysing data and then interviewing the next person and comparing to first and so on\.... - Start to build your theory from constant comparison and analysis Saturation When additional data doesn\'t add anything to final theory Memo writing -- theorising in process Integrating themes How these individual themes interact to become a theory [Remaining grounded] [Inductive]- remain focussed on the data Field notes or memos used to keep track of emerging ideas 'Emerging' ideas are checked and tested through further specific exploration [Creating theory] [End product is presentation of a theory ] This should explain the phenomena and relationships that influence it The intention is for the [theory to be applicable/transferable] to other similar settings [Advantages] Rigorous (accurate/goes to the point) Very clear audit trail (Record as you go along) Potential utility of theory [Potential issues ] Interpretation accepted (in some versions) but reflexivity rarely included Theoretical sampling Saturation/ premature closure - Researchers reach a point in their analysis of data that sampling more data will not lead to more information related to their research questions. Can lead to assumptions. Assume if ask another person, won't get any new info - which may not be the case Participant numbers - ideally want a large sample size (not always prioritised/possible) 'Emerging' theory - suggests theory just waiting to jump out(qualitative researchers don\'t like this) Method slurring [What kind of questions does it answer]: \- [uncharted waters] where little is known. How do [social structures and processes influence behaviour or experience] **PHENOMENOLOGY** *[Philosophy] and a qualitative research methodology* Understanding [individual experience], philosophy is key component **Lived experience** - Understanding the world as we experience it, [describe a phenomenon] as it is understood through our everyday experience. Aim to understand what it is to be human - lived experience. How we make sense of our lives and things that happen to us. **Lifeworld** - Related to [key structures of human existence] (time, space, relationships w/ others, corporeality) - **Temporarility**: i.e. your perception of time, how they experience time, sense, meaning, quality of time - **Spaciality**: i.e. How they experience space, environment, feeling in sense of space, is the space calm or hostile - **Sociality:** Experiences with relationships with people, how other people influence my understanding of my world - **Embodiment:** experience the world through our body ["lived body"] or [Corporeality] - how we experience our body. how you physically feel - How we make sense or the world and our existence **Existential** -- an interest in the human condition and our concerns with life, ageing, death, being, becoming, identity, embodiment, freedom, belonging... [Existential Assumptions ] As human beings we struggle with the meaning of our existence We attempt to [understand] ourselves We seek to [make sense of our] experiences We reflect on the things that matter to us in our lives [Other features: ] Rigorous, rich, in-depth, resonant description Captures [complexity by reflecting the ambiguities, ambivalence and contradictions in our everyday lives] - [Doesn't try and tidy up the experience] - takes it as it Interpretive **Data collection:** Interviews **Data analysis**: meanings, Interpretation **Phenomenological descriptions**: - Use combination of scientific descriptions and poetic (looser, more creative) - Can be more scientific (More towards little q) or more creative (more to the end of big Q) or somewhere on the spectrum **Phenomenological attitudes** - Always through our flawed/Unexamined assumptions about how we see the world. - If you examine the natural attitude - you see a lot of biases and assumptions - from the way our mind categorises and organises our experience. - Applying the [phenomenological attitude] - Way of checking our assumptions - Try and set aside our natural attitude - aka without value judgement, views meaning or assumptions. To begin to see how our biases and unexamined assumptions influence what it is we see and understand. (more of a Quant idea) 1. **[Husserlian (Descriptive)]** - More scientific (closer to quant) - Seeks essence (assumptions) - [Reduction or suspending your natural attitude], set aside biases, see the essence (Searching for something that exists). Essence is unchanging aspects of experience. Allows researcher to get to point of certainty - [Present experience is behind natural attitude.] Instead of living totally in natural attitude. [can adopt phenomenological attitude] - [uses strict method, describes data in a normative, scientific sense] emphasis is on data - No external theory used 2. **[Hermeneutic (heideggerian)]** - [Focus on lived experience]. Understand the meaning of experiences. - [Interpretive side of phenomenology.] - Being open to being surprised by what is said - Can\'t set aside biases and assumptions. Reflexivity. - Findings are [co-constructed]: researcher and participant both involved - [Hermeneutic circle:] interpretation key, trying to understand how people make sense of lives in relation to lived experience. When you as researcher look at data, can\'t help but interpret from your own interpretation - Lived experience retracted through philosophical, literary,reflexive or theoretical lens **Doing Phenomenological Research (Data Collection)** 1. [Descriptive - Husserlian ] Aim: To reveal the [essence] of an experience (science leaning) \- Uses a strict method \- Describes the phenomenon in a normative/scientific sense \- Emphasis on the data \- External theory is not used Note: \- [Bracketing]: \- Concept to take yourself out \- (but can you really take yourself out of it) Bracketing is a method used in qualitative research to mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of preconceptions that may taint the research process. However, the processes through which bracketing takes place are poorly understood, in part as a result of a shift away from its phenomenological origins 2. [Hermeneutic - Heideggerian ] Aim: To evoke lived experience (humanities leaning) \- Uses the hermeneutic circle \- Findings are co-constructed \- Lived experience is refracted through philosophical, literary, reflexive or theoretical lenses **INTERPRETATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS (IPA)** What is it? - A Type of phenomenology - Focuses on personal lived experience - Offers a detailed examination of particulars -- particular people in particular contexts [(More in-depth individual accounts)] - Aims to understand a single case first before moving on to compare cases. IPA[: hermeneutic.] interpretation is fundamental feature - Focusses on [lived experience]. How people make sense of their word and the meanings they attach to them Phenomenological -- focus on how individuals make sense of their experiences Unlike descriptive phenomenology it does not aim to identify the invariant structure of the experience but to 'grasp the texture and qualities of an experience as it is lived by an experiencing subject.' (Eatough and Smith, 2017). Acknowledges the intellectual and philosophical basis of phenomenology as Husserlian but is primarily [Hermeneutic (Heideggarian):] - [Heideggerian] -- people (researchers and participants) and their world are socially and historically contingent and contextually bound. - [Hermeneutics]: Belief that as individuals we are committed to interpreting our lives, it is our way of being. - Hermeneutics can be applied to lived experience. Interpretation tells us something about the individual and the contexts in which they live. [Understandings and prejudices] - We all understand something from somewhere i.e. from a specific cultural, sociohistorical perspective, these are our 'prejudices'. - Prejudices are neither good or bad but inevitable and when worked with can give rise to better understandings and creative interpretations. IPA recognizes biases and \"prejudices\", and working with them better for understanding and interpretations [Double hermeneutics]: In working with data, the researcher Is trying to make sense of the participant making sense of his or her own experiences **Methods:** Topic: - Of existential importance to participants; experiences that bring change and demand reflection - Some use of literature to develop the research question - Sample size and sampling - [Small sample size] and sampling. Can be specific groups or looser. Researcher just needs to argue how they received [homogenous] sample - Can involve 'hot cognition' or 'cool cognition' - Focus on issues that matter to people. Can be burning issues (hot cognition) or thinking over long period of time (cool cognition) - NO saturation in IPA - [Data collection:] - interviews and journals - Can be used with other techniques - Data analysis: - step by step method in main text, flexible method so good way to start off as novice **NARRATIVE RESEARCH** - People telling stories, [stories help us make sense of the world] - Temporality (time aspect) over time - Narrative as a range of methodological approaches that focus on interpreting texts that have a storied form - Social actors organise their lives and experiences through stories and in doing so, make sense of them. - Role of narrative: "to make a point: to transmit a message- often some sort of [moral evaluation or critical judgemen]t[- about the world or themselves] the teller shares with other people. Usually involves: action, plot, moral; ordered sequence of events; access to meanings; source of qualitative data; A useful way of using an accessible, culturally common form ([storytelling]) to identify personal meanings and [link them to sociological, cultural meanings] **Why narratives?** Smart argues that this kind of attentive listening makes it possible to understand a phenomenon without direct personal experience of it. This DOESN'T mean you know all there is to know about someone after an interview! This suggests we can hear narratives and analyse them in ways that help us understand what the stories people tell actually mean. **The Moral of the Story** *I had a terrible journey to Brunel today, but I didn't miss my lectures*. *I was up early this morning to get the kids off to school before I came to uni.* *I was on the phone to my friend who was panicking about her assignment.* All these stories have a moral (e.g. don't rely on the Metropolitan line) or they tell the listener something about the teller (you are a good student, caring parent, trusted friend etc.) **What is narrative research?** [Narrative research:] - gathering/using narrative data - \'an approach to the analysis of qualitative data that emphasises the stories that people employ to account for events. - [ Pre-existing data: ] - eg novel or film, or secondary analysis, policy docs; - [Generating new data:] - asking participants to tell stories or write about their lives; - Stories usually have a [purpose] (boasting, self-justification, humour); - Narrative research focuses on [extracting meanings from stories]- not just what happened, but what does it mean, how does the speaker [make sense of it], [what does that tell us about the research topic]; "Narrative must also carry some particular, rather than only general, meanings.\" (Squire et al, 2014, p5); Not just about general morality, norms, but personal meanings - Might use pre-existing data like what happens in film or secondary analysis of narrative data. We can also generate new data by people telling stories or writing about their lives [Doing narrative research ] [Does it matter whether a story is true or not? ] - [Doesn\'t have to be true] - myths/fables common across cultures - they convey meanings about social norms, morals, virtue; - Fairy tales: e.g. Cinderella: downtrodden beauty wins handsome prince - Jokes an important way of conveying meaning: using narrative form - Stories (fictional or otherwise!) can provide access to truths - Social Research itself is about telling stories: 'the practices of writing, analysis, and investigation, whether of social or cultural material, constitute less a scientifically positive project than a [cultural practice that organizes particular rituals of storytelling] told by situated investigators'. This framing casts the sociologist and researcher as a storyteller: not just the research participant. [Advantages:] These approaches allow us to analyse existing written or recorded narratives for meaning, We can also use research to stimulate or elicit narratives in research; We can then analyse the narratives that emerge in interviews, We can take a narrative approach to asking questions: 'tell me about the last time you saw your GP/social worker/physio....' Even if you ask Qs about research participants' experience, you are likely to end up getting narratives. The narrative interview: can start with a [generative narrative questions] linked to the topic: e.g. tell me how the story of your life occurred....to stimulate the key narrative: Can be supplemented by [more specific question]s: what happened when you had your diagnosis....? And then [probing].... can you explain....? Can you tell me a bit more about.... How did you react to that? Finally, use end of interview as a 'balancing phase' to [place the story into a wider context], and asking interviewee to [think about key meanings.] [Issues/Pitfalls: ] If you're doing narrative interviews, you really have to step back and let the participant take the floor; This means allowing them to speak at length; You will have to learn the key skill of [resisting interrupting, probing, evaluating, directing] until they've completed the narrative; Try active listening instead! Narrative interviews [can be demanding for participants]- in terms of time (they take a long time!) [and the emotional impact] of exploring life experience in this kind of depth and detail; You will need to need to explain this clearly in your ethics form and PIS; You would also need to be clear this approach is appropriate for your research Q and participants; Narrative interviews generate large amounts of data and often range across topics; Semi-structured interviews might be better if you want to focus on a very specific aspect of experience [Audience feedback ] When you\'re telling a story, how do you know that the person listening wants you to carry on? They are called on to respond: prompting the storyteller: 1\. To continue: by [verbal and non verbal cues] (nodding, facial expressions, laughter, verbal cues such as, \"uh huh, I see, right\", or asking for clarification, to extend or deepen the narrative: \"What did she mean? What happened then?" 2\. Or to stop: looking away, interrupting, changing the subject, trying to close the story for you (recapping, signaling that the story has achieved its function), \"Yes, I understand, Ok, I get it." Stories usually rely on an audience for feedback; [audiences often co- construct a narrative]; [we rely on others to construct and reflect back our idea of self-] takes place through interaction, storytelling is an important medium for these processes; **ACTION RESEARCH** - Action research is a form of [participatory research], an approach that involves carrying out research [with and for people], in [the context of its application], rather than undertaking research on them - Action Research systematically [studies the process & outcomes of change.] - Often used for inquiry in own practice e.g. teachers using on students - [Works towards a change (instigate change] in environment) - [Quality improvement], Creates new knowledge. Qualitative and Quantitative - can use quantitative methods (may look at numbers and stats too) - Origins unclear **3 Key characteristics of AR** 1. [Participatory] character: researchers & practitioners work together in directing the course of change & the accompanying research. 2. [Democratic process]: researchers/ participants/practitioners are empowered to change the contexts in which they work together. 3. Simultaneous [contribution to social science & social change] (of knowledge argued to be more meaningful in practice). An active practice-based practice... At a minimum aims to [change 3 things]: -- Practitioners practices -- Their understanding of their practices -- And the condition in which they practise **How do you undertake an Action Research study?** [Research aims & objectives ] The aim of this study was to explore lessons learnt from the development of a successful new inpatient SU in an inner London NHS Teaching Hospital in the UK. The objectives of the study were: -- 1. To describe the [outcomes] achieved from implementing a new inpatient SU. -- 2. To describe the [processes] of introducing a new inpatient SU. -- 3. To identify key factors that influenced [outcomes]. **Addressing the problem with AR:** [3 key phases] 1. **Exploration:** gather data to explore the nature of the problem & focus of the study 2. **Innovation:** a number of action research usually emerge as spirals of activity 3. **Evaluation:** period of formal reflection on what has been achieved e.g. could repeat baseline measures from exploration phase **[Qualitative Methods]** [Methods]= Tools to gather data - Different types of data requires different types of methods to get it - Rules for different tools - want the best for the type of study so it's important to understand - [Coherence is key]: thinking about [what you want to achieve from your data which is driven by your research question] - then ensuring you choose the right method that allows you to collect that data  [How do methods relate to different methodological approaches?] - Your methodological (framework) approach is linked to your research question. - What tool (method) do you need to answer your research question? - What is your primary focus? [So what actually constitutes data? ] - [Anything that gets you closer to the phenomena under inquiry] i.e. anything that can tell/show you something of interest [How to choose the best methods? ] - What do I want at the end? (outcome) - What are my options? - What will work for me? - What will work for my participants? **Methods:**  [Research example ] What do I want at the end? A detailed insight into people\'s experience -- in line with the underlying approach What are my options? Rich narratives focusing on people's experiences: What will work best? What will work realistically? **Summary** There are LOADS of different methods Methods you select should hang nicely on the coat hanger of methodology selected They should be able to do the job you need them do (What is the world (base- Ontology), How do gain knowledge (body of hanger- Epistemology), Approach/framework (hangers - methodology), Coats hanging (tools - Methods) They must also be appropriate for your participants - Know your aim, know your tools, know your limitations **[FOCUS GROUPS]** - Originated & developed from Social Sciences - Started off popular in marketing then popular in health [What is it? ] - Method where [data collected from multiple people at same time]. - It is an [interactive data collection method], a form of a group interview that maximises communication between people - The group processes help individuals [explore & clarify] their views in ways not possible in a one-to-one interview, can [co-construct] new understandings and knowledge - Listening to someone say something may give you a diff perspective that you can draw upon a diff experience (can't get this from 1 on 1) - Not tied to a philosophical position or research tradition [Why choose Focus Groups?] (advantages) Can collect detailed information in a short time & at lower cost To access individuals' personal [ideas and understandings, through interaction with others] More like everyday conversation, can tap into humour, anecdotes etc (high ecological validity) To [debate, confront, challenge or modify ideas] or opinion To [explore issues] in socially marginalised groups To [explore little known phenomena] [What are we after? (Purpose)] - Collectivity or consensus? - Want a [range of views & responses] of an experience in common - Want to avoid social desirability.. (answers given because they think that's what you want to hear) \* Important to [prepare ] [Recruitment and Sampling ] [Purposive sampling] ([common characteristics], similarities, but not clones!) Homogeneity or heterogeneity? - Balance between common characteristics but not same Existing, naturally occurring or new group? Incentives? Travel costs, voucher, How many: \- Groups? [2-4] for small projects [The process ] Having a [moderator/facilitator ] Having a [note-taker/observer/helper ] Having a [clear agenda and ground rules] Maximising interaction between participants: Warm up activity /ice breaker Open-ended and inclusive questions Use of activity - e.g. card-sorting, vignettes Make clear EVERY contribution is valuable [Dynamics within focus groups ] - Key is that they interact with each other [Data Management ] Good quality recording of group Identification of each participant in transcription Analysis already determined at proposal stage What/who is the unit of analysis? [So why Focus Groups & not other group methods? ] Can: Confront or challenge opinion which 1:1 interviews cannot Provide novel, heterogeneous data [Should not be used:] When consensus is desired With a group in conflict To educate When sharing could be harmful to participant [Ethical considerations specific to FG ] 1\. A participant [withdrawing during the data collection] -- rarely but can happen. Needs to check if a person is supported, and the remaining group is ok. Assistant is invaluable. Follow up after the event. 2\. A participant [withdrawing after data collection] -- participant can ask for their data to be withdrawn. Complex in FG as the process of data generation is interactive. Extreme but may lose whole FG data or remove substantive comments from the person. 3\. [Confidentiality] - added ethical risk around confidentiality and disclosure as others may break it. Ground rules highlighting this are essential before and after. 4\. [Inclusivity] - more challenging for people with communication impairments but can be done with careful preparation and communication support techniques **[INTERVIEWS]** [What are they? ] A [conversation] with a purpose Probably the [most widely used method in qualitative research ] Often personal and intimate encounters But also "complex, labour intensive and uncertain business, fraught with tricky issues... [Why use them?] Potential to obtain rich data - allows you [to dig, probe, get in depth, meanings, explore, constructions around topics,] etc. - Post positivist view = interviewer as miner: Knowledge is there, just have to uncover it - Constructivist/ interpretivist view = interviewer as a traveller: Knowledge is created and negotiated in the interview itself. Both interviewer and participant are active in process and interpreting. Transformative journey [Flexible] -- time/place/content [Focus on individual ] Capacity to discuss sensitive topics -can access sensitive info not appropriate for a group setting but depends on your rapport Voice to expert/ power [What makes a good interview?] [Combine structure with flexibility] - Topic guide but also can allow flexibility to explore down avenues [Interactive ] [ Getting below the surface ] Generative - Uncover something that we don't understand, new ideas, insights, concepts Focus on language use [What makes a good interviewer? ] Active listening Enquiring mind/ curiosity - ask questions Confidence and comfort Humility - respect of what interviewee and what they want to say Patience Concentration and stamina - give time between questions to formulate Ideas Preparation -make sure questions are open and not leading Responsive - What do you do if somebody bursts into tears? Manage conflict. [Practical considerations: ] - asking somebody about everyday life, might be better to do an interview at home. So the venue and environment are important. Time of day and how long. [Types of interviews: ] - Face to face - Body language - Trust building/rapport - Telephone - poor geographic, sensitive subjects - 1-1 interview: - Confidentiality - More focused on single voice - sensitivity - Walk along - Diad - Have 1 person in room (carer or partner) - Can be disruptive or can give dynamics of the relationship - **Structured** - (questionnaires - rare) - **Semi- structured** (more common) - Framework of topics you want to cover but with flexibility to go off piece and explore new areas that participant brought up. - **Unstructured** (exploratory with open question like tell me about life) - **Conversation** (more rapport) **[Stages of the interview ]**  1\. Right from [arrival], confidence and respect of space important, small talk 2[. Introducing research] - more formal, paperwork 3\. [Begin interview:] background and set the tone, like tell me about you? 4\. [Heart of interview]: breadth and depth but flow, take breaks, probing, cover research questions, 5\. [Ending i]nterview: give indication of last thing and end positively [6. Post Interview:] thank them, emphasize value,what next (how data Will be used etc.. \`normal conversation [Relationship between interviewee and interviewer?] 1. Roles 2. Reciprocity and disclosure 3. Power dynamics 4. Reflexivity [Potential ethical & other issues ] Disclosure Managing emotion Reticence (reluctant - unwilling) Loss of focus Other people (diad) Equipment mal-function Emic = inside view Etic = outside view **[PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION]** [What is participant observation?] - [Fine balance between being \'in\' and being \'out\'] and therefore experiencing in a naturalistic way and being 'out' so you can look and see as much as possible [How to do it?] **Facilitate participation:** Gate-keepers - (facilitate, help you know where you can enter and rules, maybe somebody community trusts) [Enter the field ] Find your place Interact Create relationships **Meticulous observation:** Systematic collection of information (notes, photos, recordings, newspaper cuttings) Other formal data collection (interviews, counting) Reflexive awareness of self Reflexive awareness of power Confirmation Questioning [Fieldnotes ] Date, time, and place of observation Jot down key information -- key words and phrases, specific facts of what happened - what [you're seeing and doing, not just facts also how you felt about them] [Sensory impressions] - sights, sounds, textures, smells etc Trace what you did during the day Describe observations as accurately as possible (draw if helpful) Record your [personal reactions ] Questions for future investigation - purpose that it opens up avenue for you to go down - explore new areas **4 set of notes:** 1. Jotting while [in the field ] 2. Detailed description - [right after], what you saw, 3. [Analytical] ideas - what you think is happening 4. [Reflections] - reflexive diary, personal reactions [Advantages] Multi-dimensional view on a phenomena (not just relying on on the thing but also on how you feel, what you hear, etc) Highlight the 'taken-for-granted' (gives you a holistic view) - What is "normal" to them may not be "normal" to me Natural encounters (it's not entirely natural since you are here but with time, it encourages life to go on around you) Inductive (learning from the people, seeing what's there and being led by that) [Challenges] Ethics Getting into the field Access to the group Finding your place -- not too deep, not too superficial Power and truth telling Time Exiting (damage for ppl you are leaving and for you yourself with the relations that you have built) Moral responsibilities (of when you're there and when you're leaving) ?danger [Summary] Participant observation can be a very powerful tool in collecting rich data in situations It is unique in the methods tool box It is however complex in delivery, takes time and commitment Consideration of power and reflexivity are core components Ethics can be complex **[TOPIC GUIDES]** [What is a topic guide?] A series of [questions/ areas] that will [guide your 'conversation' ] - Key areas/questions that guide the conversation of the interview. [Not too strict but ensures convo stays within the realm o]f the data you want to collect (in order to answer research question) Will reflect the approach you have taken (semi-structured/ open) May include [prompts] of [specific areas you would like to cover (tell me more about this)] Should be designed to enhance rapport They are NOT fixed scripts [Developing the topic guide ] 1\. Think about [areas of interest] in [your particular topic ] i\. These should relate to the research question ii\. May be informed by literature you have read 2\. Reflect on the [order] i\. Start with an 'easy' introductory question -- non-threatening and easy to answer ii\. [Cluster questions] around specific areas iv\. Finish with a 'mop-up' questions -- anything to add not already discussed [Question structure ] [Avoid closed questions] (want open ended) [Avoid leading questions] (don't direct) [Avoid very direct questions] Ex - tell me the definition of (almost like they're being quizzed) Vs - can you tell me your understanding of (less direct) - [Don't make assumptions] (tell me how you cope with... implies/assumes that they need coping mechanisms) [Prompts and probes] Cues [ that encourage participants to open up more] Often more explicitly worded than the main question Also include body language and encouraging verbalisations (e.g. aha's, hmmmm's)- remain neutral [Review your questions ] What am I trying to find out with this question? Does this help me answer my research question? What would I feel like if I was asked this question? (reflect & think of rapport) Is this question likely to be meaningful to my participants? How are participants from different backgrounds likely to feel if asked this question? [Piloting the topic guide ] - Mock interview - Review yourself and have someone else review it - talk through and ask for feedback Absolutely worth doing Get further feedback on the clarity, flow and potential intrusiveness of questions Get practice in asking the questions and fluency moving things on (fluidity, naturally) responding to the participant Doing other things e.g. writing brief notes [Presenting the guide ] The guide is for you Should be clear and easy to see Main topics in bold Prompts in lighter font or indented May need to present in dissertations/publications [Example topic guide (part of) ] Initial introduction -- reiterate purpose of interview, confirm audio-recording and confidentiality, request break if requested To start with I'd like to know a little more about your history with MS. Can you tell me about your symptoms and how they impact on your everyday life? How long, diagnostic process and timeline, specific symptoms, impact on personal, social (e.g. family, hobbies, meaningful roles) and participation (e.g. work) level More specifically focusing on physical activity, how would you describe your engagement with physical activity now? How much do you do, what do you do, why you chose those activities, what adaptations do you need to make, what is the impact on doing that PA? How has that changed over time? How does it compare to PA pre MS diagnosis, what has caused that change, when did it change, how has it changed? [Adapting for Focus Groups ] Similar principles, but Wording need[s to be for group experience ] Prompts to facilitate sharing and equity in group (has anyone got anything to add?, "what does everything think of this topic...", "is that relevant for anyone?") May also include: details of additional activities e.g. Card sorting Post-it note reflections Some summary charts may be helpful to ensure group agreement **[SAMPLING IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH]** How do qualitative researchers recruit participants? - Most qualitative research uses small samples (1-30) -- not only because data collection, transcription and analysis are intense and time-consuming -- but also to allow in depth exploration of individual accounts **Types of sampling** Purposive Convenience Snowballing Stratified/framework Theoretical 1. **Purposive sampling** [Aims to generate i]n-depth and insightful understanding [of your chosen topic ] Select participants on the basis they will be able to provide rich informative data Think who do we want to hear from (and who do we not), people are chosen with a purpose Number of different approaches e.g. homogeneous, heterogeneous, deviant/extreme, - Used for Focus Groups (and focus groups are used for Action Research & sometimes Grounded Theory) 2. **Convenience sampling** As the name suggests this is a pragmatic approach to sampling Usually the participants are accessible and convenient Typically take the [first people to apply to an advert] Usually bear no relationship to the wider population Can be drawn from fellow students, workplace colleagues, professional interest groups [Least rigorous way of sampling] 3. **Snowballing** [Part of convenience sampling ] May also be called friendship pyramiding (ask them to recommend someone else they know who would like to participate) Excellent for hard to reach groups where one participant can recommend another Researcher asks a participant for additional people who might like to take part 4. **Stratified** [Type of purposive sampling] Approach helps to ensure range (diversity) of participants -- i.e. male/ female -- Over 60, under 60 -- Relapsing remitting, progressive MS -- High level of activity, low level of activity Stratification also used in quantitative research to produce a matched sample, qualitative research uses it for diversity 5. **Theoretical sampling** Common in [Grounded Theory] Sampling is iterative, [Analysis & theory development influences] ongoing selection of participants - There is no pre-set notion of who to recruit, or any predetermined groups of people to compare. Instead, you start somewhere with data collection, analyze the data, and then determine from your learnings where to collect data next. - When utilising theoretical sampling, the process of collecting data, coding it, and analysing it, happens simultaneously and recursively, and not as discrete steps that lead into one another. **How much data, how many participants?** - Precision and rigour of qualitative sampling is its ability to represent salient characteristics that are the focus of the study Usually small samples Can be 1 to 50+ Sample appropriate to your research question and research approach E.g. -- **IPA** - 3-6 (homogenous) -- **Grounded Theory** -- larger sample until saturation (i.e. no new themes emerge), may be 20 - 30+, [theoretical and purposive sampling] (heterogeneous) -- **Phenomenology** -- no saturation, [small sample] n=1-10 are typical (homogeneous) -- **Ethnography** --purposive [at the level of the community] but may have aspects of 'phenomenology like' e.g. key informants in the [community] group (no saturation) -- **Narrative** -- wide ranging from 1-50, depends on the aim of the study w **[Introduction to analysis]:** [What is analysis? ] A process of data management, abstraction and interpretation Mix of systematic searching with creativity [ Continuous process ] Exciting and challenging [data management]= how data is organised [abstraction]= mass of data distilled into smaller units [interpretation]= What does the data represent - [Links and understanding of meaning] - connecting all things, seeing the picture emerge and putting the pieces together (mosaic: looking at pieces of data and organising & understanding how those pieces fit within the bigger picture) **The analytic journey** (a continuous process) - Selecting [a design approach will influence the analysis that will be undertaken ]  **Different types of analysis** **Thematic** - identify themes/patterns in your data **Framework** **Constant comparison**/ grounded theory ** Narrative** ** Interpretive** phenomenological analysis Note: Links between analysis and aim of research **Being rigorous** Clarity on what you have done When? Why? Iteration -- remain in the data Coverage Within and between case searches Negative case analysis/ deviant/ disconfirming cases Reflexivity ? Group coding/agreement ? Respondent validation ? Triangulation ? Saturation Structure of evidence/ transparency/ audit trial **Group coding** [More than 1 analyst] "The findings were checked by someone else" Can you see any problems with this statement with reference to qualitative research? - [There is no "right" answer to check for ] - Other may not understand your data as much since wasn't in the whole process - Can also bring bias and assumptions to data Arguments **against** group coding: -That it is not really an assessment of contents -That one person knows that data file better than others (usually the person involved in the interviews or the analysis.) So why would an 'outsider' researcher's (or 'sensitive researcher) views be better than the lead researchers. -Usually sensitive researchers come from different backgrounds. So they can bring their own assumptions to the data which are not necessarily helpful Arguments **for** group coding: -Engage in critical dialogue, engage, talk about the issue allowing the analyser to get into more depth and think about the data in new ways and not check whether it is correct or not. **Respondent validation (member checking)** The researcher shows all or part of a study's findings to participants - May help the researchers to determine whether their interpretations make sense and are acceptable to participants - Not always possible (e.g. when participants have limited cognitive ability) - Not always appropriate -- why? - Particularly in interpretive approaches (IPA) - because in this type of analysis you're going way beyond what people say - so if they say something new - how do you manage the new data? Do you restart? **Triangulation** Corroborate the interpretations of the participants Are the accounts of participants/ interpretations of researchers corroborated in any way? This may increase data quality in some contexts Avoid viewing triangulation as a 'check' on 'facts' -- e.g. differing perspectives of clients and carers on a given issue may be analysed to reveal influences of context, insider-outsider roles, differing agendas -- NOT a check on 'truth'. Also, differing interpretations by different researchers may reveal something about the influence of professional concepts and expectations -- not simply 'bias' or 'lack of reliability' -Try and gather different sources to try and understand the multidimensional nature of the specifics -Triangulation with different analysts, different ppl who collect the data (Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories, and/or investigators to address a research question.)\*\* Examples: - Data triangulation: Using data from different times, spaces, and people (diff people - carer and client) - [Investigator triangulation: Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analyzing data] - Theory triangulation: Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research - Methodological triangulation: Using different methodologies to approach the same topic (note: \^ don't need to know those specifically - was just to help in understanding) **Saturation** The problem with this concept is that it [seems to combine an inductive model with a claim to generalisability]...... all you claim confidently to have covered is the ground where the snow came from (when you "can't" get any new data - no new emerging themes) (Ex: you make a big snowball, but you're not saying that everything in that snowball represents all snow - but that the ball comes from the ground it came from) - Part of grounded theory (iterative- constant comparison) **How do we know if the Analysis is any good?** Rigour - [Thorough and appropriate approach] has been applied, systematic and transparent [data collection, analysis and interpretation of data] Credibility - Judge if findings [are well presented and meaningful]. Can you make sense of the results (plausible, related to significance of data) Presentation - Is it balanced, nuanced, depth, and with quotes that support their arguments, or that demonstrate linkages of opposite views ? **Summary** Analysis is continuous Should illustrate [coherence in approach ] Is [rigorous and creative ] Proof is often in the pudding! **[Thematic analysis ]** **Fundamentals of thematic analysis** [Most widely used qualitative analytical method ] A method for identifying themes and patterns across a dataset Different types Inductive Theoretical Experiential Constructionist Can be applied to different theoretical/methodological approaches Researchers standpoint (reflexivity) important **Step 1: Transcription** Process of transcribing audio data to transcribed data - audio to text - written verbatim Levels of transcription [Anonymise ] Who is doing it? Time Memos **Step 2: Familiarisation** Reading the transcripts several times (to get a sense of what's going on) Immersion Active [analytical and critical reading] (try to understand, ask yourself how I would feel in that situation - flagging something about you - [reflexology] - is this info jumping out at me because of who i am?) Memo's of things you notice **Step 3: Coding dataset** Selective coding (deductive) \- (Sense of what you might already want to look at - only looking at orange smarties) Complete coding (inductive) \- (No prior idea, code anything and everything that is of interest to you - all smarties) Semantic codes - Use [people's words/ codes] to label a section Latent codes - [A sense] of what they're trying to say **Example complete coding**  **Step 4: Searching for themes** Collating codes \- Try and find links, what connects codes Proposing potential themes - [Coherence of codes, what\'s their bigger story].. Potential theme Gathering all data to each potential theme Look at [relationship/ hierarchy between themes] **Step 5: Reviewing themes** Check themes with coded extracts -double check, ensure relationship Check theme with entire dataset - [Do they represent data? Are they telling a story? ] Thematic internal homogeneity (within the themes, there is something that glues the bits together) and external heterogeneity (Clear space btw one theme and another theme, don't want themes to have a lot of overlap) Generate thematic map - Mapping the links between the quotes, group, subthemes, themes (if mapping is challenging - indication that you likely need to go back and recheck - ensure links) **Step 6: Defining and naming themes** Refine specifics of themes Definitions Names Articulate overall story **Step 7: Writing and finalising analysis** Final refining Selection of compelling extract examples Relate back to research question Relate findings to literature Write clear report of analytical process **Interpretation in analysis** Analytic claims that are grounded in but go beyond the surface of the data - Not just repeating what they said but interpret what they could meant (and how I can defend that - Quotes, etc) **Summary** [Strengths] Flexibility - Can be used for diff research Qs, methods, methodological frameworks, etc. Accessible to novice researchers Relatively quick to learn Results accessible to general Audience - Presentation of themes relatively [easy for others to understand] [Critique ] Lacks branding -Vague guidelines/rules on how to interpret, little guidance Potential [limitations to power of] interpretation Focus not on individual Does not make claims about use of language (if aim of research focused around language - would not use this method of analysis) **Thematic analysis cont.** Basics of analysis: Analysis starts as soon as you hear/see something -- i.e. while collecting data (memo's) 4 Phases are not linear or fixed It is messy -- but looks neat in write up - Iterative process - Memos and journaling - What are your assumptions, your standpoints, maps and tables to show connections & analysis 1\. Familiarisation (immersion) -- Memo's - Collecting data, reviewing transcripts 2\. Initial codes -- Systematic line coding (highlighter pens) - line by line coding -- Collation of codes (post it note heaven) 3\. Searching for themes -- Group codes -- family codes or initial themes (post it notes on A4 sheets)\# -- Thematic mapping (big paper) [Line coding ] Highlighting features that are interesting Be systematic Code a lot [Include contradictions] (negative case analysis) Use words directly from the transcript or your own interpretation [Thinking about groups ] Groups or family codes link little codes together Trial and error process Consider all codes Again include contradictions (negative case) May develop into [sub-themes] [Developing Themes ] Generally inductive Capture something important Related to the research question Some level of patterned response **How?** Take [group codes and look at relationships between them] Map this out on flip chart Reconsider the content of group/family [codes within theme ] Refine if necessary Collapse if necessary **Refining and checking** Read transcripts again and check themes Re-code if necessary Check memo's Check for contradictions again Finally [select quotes that give rich account of the theme/sub-theme] **Rigour/transparency/trustworthiness** Tell us exactly what you have done Illustrate this where you can (appendices) -- Sample coded sheet -- Thematic development/charting etc Evidence of enhancing depth -- Negative case analysis -- critical dialogue/ ?consensus -- Iterative Evidence of accounting for self -- Reflexivity (?appendix) **Presenting themes** Text Thematic development chart Table Thematic network Conceptual model Picture **[FRAMEWORK METHOD]** **What is the Framework Method?** Framework is an analytical tool that provides key steps and processes in the management of qualitative data It is a systematic yet flexible approach that can be used effectively by non-specialist qualitative researchers with guidance from an experienced qualitative researcher It is increasingly being used in health research, and multidisciplinary teams It is NOT a short cut method to qualitative analysis!! What defines Framework? The key defining feature of Framework is the [ matrix] based format Matrix rows are the cases i.e. individual interviewees Matrix columns are the codes i.e. a descriptive or conceptual label assigned to an excerpt of raw data Matrix cells are the summarised data [The matrix provides a structure into which the data can be systematically reduced and organised. ] Not aligned to any epistemological, ontological or theoretical approach **Framework facilitates:** A priori (deductive) and inductive analysis (the aim of framework is to use a structured/systematic approach to analyze the data through a theory lens or generate theory from data) In-depth analysis of themes from multiple participants across the whole data set The individual participant's voice remains connected to their account within the matrix Therefore aiding the comparing and contrasting of data across cases and within case; the essence of qualitative research - [Across and within] **When to use Framework?** Large data sets as [matrix format provides a structured summary of the data], especially interview data, nonparticipant observation field notes, minutes of meetings, focus groups When data is largely homogeneous i.e. covering similar topics or key issues Step by step process makes it suitable for collaborative projects [with multidisciplinary teams], including lay people With an [experienced qualitative research leadership to guide] reflexivity, rigour and quality issues including interpretation of the matrix **What types of research questions use Framework?** Contextual i.e. exploring the experiences of people with spinal injury and neuropathic pain Diagnostic i.e. what are the barriers and facilitators to delivering practice base education? Evaluative i.e. what is the effectiveness of the Ponseti support group for parents of babies and children with clubfoot, and what improvements can be made? Strategic i.e. identifying the requirements for the implementation of the swallowing guidelines for people with stroke How do you do Framework? **Key steps:** 1\. Familiarisation 2\. Identifying an initial thematic framework 3\. Labelling(Indexing & sorting) 4\. Charting data in framework matrix 5\. Mapping & interpreting the data Can use Excel or Word (or software package e.g. CAQDAS computer assisted qualitative data analysis) **Pre 'analysis': Transcription** Format of transcripts important i.e. double spacing, numbered lines and big margins on the left (coding labels) and right (notes and ideas) If not transcribing data, process starts with listening to tapes against transcripts and cleansing data e.g. removing/anonymising identifiable information Transcribing is a great opportunity to become immersed in data and so this pre-stage forms the start of the analysis process **1. Familiarisation** Become familiar with data through reading the transcripts several times & making notes. Listening to tapes is very important especially if you have not carried out the interviews) Gain an overview of the substantive content and identify topics and subjects of interest, recurrent across the data set & relevant to the research question Record initial impressions/thoughts in the (right hand side or notebook) margin of the transcripts, read line by line or thinking about the key emphasis of each paragraph At end of this stage need to decide what broad concepts or themes will be used to label & sort & compare data. **2. Identifying an initial thematic framework** Involves re-reading transcripts line by line [Underline interesting segments of the text and apply a code] or paraphrase that describes what is important in the passage in the left hand margin Codes can be inductive i.e. coding passages of interest as they arise or deductive i.e. related to the research objectives questions (also called a priori) Use the right hand margin for making analytical notes and ideas Good to discuss the framework within the research /supervisory team [Example of a thematic framework] 1\. Background/Demographic information 2\. The meaning of exercise in people with MS living in the community 3\. The meaning of physical activity in people with MS living in the community 4\. Relationship between exercise and physical activity 5\. Influencing Factors for exercise and physical activity 6\. The top 10 activities reflect life with MS (Views about the top 10) 7\. Beyond coping to resilience (Views about the top 10 reason why) **3. Labelling (Indexing & sorting)** Process of labelling involves applying the thematic framework to all transcripts [All transcripts labelled with identified themes and sorting by themes and concepts] Thematic framework is iteratively refined to reflect any new topics/ ideas identified in subsequent transcripts **4. Charting phase (framework matrix)** Charting phase is the [final step in organising and managing the data ] A [spreadsheet can be used to generate a matrix and the data is 'charted' into the matrix ] Thematic matrix was created and organised to facilitate ease of analysing the data within themes or between cases in the study This phase further reduces the data by summarising the content of each labelled paragraph