Appraising qualitative health research—towards a differentiated approach

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111772
Author(s):  
Veronika Williams ◽  
Anne-Marie Boylan ◽  
Nicola Newhouse ◽  
David Nunan
2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Lindsay

Qualitative researchers have much to gain by using comparison groups. Although their use within qualitative health research is increasing, the guidelines surrounding them are lacking. The purpose of this article is to explore the extent to which qualitative comparison groups are being used within health research and to outline the lessons learned in using this type of methodology. Through conducting a scoping review, 31 articles were identified that demonstrated five different types of qualitative comparison groups. I highlight the key benefits and challenges in using this approach.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 731-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick O’Byrne

Critical theory is a paradigm that promotes viewpoints that are alternative and, at times, contrary to mainstream beliefs and dictates. In 2012, I adopted this perspective to review the role of ethnography and surmised that the data which arise from this research approach, which I described as an in-depth study of cultures, can be used to discipline and control these groups. In this edition of Qualitative Health Research, another author has critiqued this position. In this article, I review this critique, reiterate my position, update the data I used for my 2012 article, and highlight how I navigate what I feel is a tension between critical theory and practice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160940691880916
Author(s):  
Katherine Bischoping

Using examples from qualitative health research and from my childhood experience of reading a poem about a boy devoured by a lion (Belloc, 1907), I expand on a framework for reflexivity developed in Bischoping and Gazso (2016). This framework is unique in first synthesizing works from multidisciplinary narrative analysis research in order to arrive at common criteria for a “good” story: reportability, liveability, coherence, and fidelity. Next, each of these criteria is used to generate questions that can prompt reflexivity among qualitative researchers, regardless of whether they use narrative data or other narrative analysis strategies. These questions pertain to a broad span of issues, including appropriation, censorship, and the power to represent, using discomfort to guide insight, addressing vicarious traumatization, accommodating diverse participant populations, decolonizing ontology, and incorporating power and the social into analyses overly focused on individual meaning-making. Finally, I reflect on the affinities between narrative – in its imaginatively constructed, expressive, and open-ended qualities – and the reflexive impulse.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 652-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn C. Bowtell ◽  
Susan M. Sawyer ◽  
Rosalie A. Aroni ◽  
Julie B. Green ◽  
Rony E. Duncan

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160940691775078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Flynn ◽  
Lauren Albrecht ◽  
Shannon D. Scott

This article discusses four challenges to conducting qualitative focus groups: (1) maximizing research budgets through innovative methodological approaches, (2) recruiting health-care professionals for qualitative health research, (3) conducting focus groups with health-care professionals across geographically dispersed areas, and (4) taking into consideration data richness when using different focus group data collection methods. In light of these challenges, we propose two alternative approaches for collecting focus group data: (a) extended period of quantitative data collection that facilitated relationship building in the sites prior to qualitative focus groups and (b) focus groups by videoconference. We share our experiences on employing both of these approaches in two national research programs.


2021 ◽  
pp. 104973232110611
Author(s):  
Jill Owczarzak ◽  
Katherine C. Smith

In January 2019, revisions to federal regulations that outline requirements for ethical oversight of human subjects research (The Revised Common Rule) went into effect. These revisions reflect major changes in thinking about risk and protection of research subjects. The Revised Common Rule (RCR) considerably curtails federal oversight of social and behavioral science, with most non-interventional research and “benign” behavioral interventions becoming exempt from mandated Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, although determination of exemption remains with IRBs. As two qualitative health researchers serving on IRBs, we consider how this contraction of federal oversight dovetails with longstanding criticisms of IRB oversight of qualitative research. We explore the passage of the RCR as a point of potentially important change in procedure and principle in relation to ethical oversight of qualitative health research. We identify challenges and opportunities with these changes at the institutional, professional, and individual levels for ethical and impactful qualitative research.


Author(s):  
Barbara Paterson ◽  
Sally Thorne ◽  
Connie Canam ◽  
Carol Jillings

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document