Points of Hesitation

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julianne Cheek
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Critical Issue ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Over Time

Qualitative health research has long had as one of its mantras a commitment to, and focus on, human rights and social justice. However over time, it is possible that such centrality can have the effect of creating a sense of the familiar, and with such familiarity assumptions about how human rights and social justice are being advanced through the process of qualitative inquiry. A sense of comfort or even complacency can emerge that may sometimes obstruct or prevent us from pausing to think deeply and re-examine these assumptions and how they impact on our thinking and actions as qualitative researchers. This paper aims to surface questions designed to produce points of hesitation able to assist in exploring the critical issue of how qualitative research does, and might, fit with an agenda based around the advancement of human rights and social justice. Using examples from my own research I explore and reflect on issues that have troubled me and subsequently forced me to hesitate and think deeply about what may have seemed self evident or given.

scholarly journals Qualitative research between craftsmanship and McDonaldization. A keynote address from the 17th Qualitative Health Research Conference

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svend Brinkmann
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Justice Research ◽  
The Third ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Social Justice Research

Although qualitative research methods remain marginalized in certain disciplines, qualitative inquiry has within the last couple of decades become generally accepted as a legitimate scientific way of working. Today, society at large is making more use of qualitative research than ever, not just in laudable social justice research, for example, but also in relation to market and consumer research and focus groups for different political parties. With this in mind, I wish to discuss three current questions for qualitative researchers: The first I will refer to as “ethical progressivism versus new ethical challenges”. Is qualitative research as such more ethical and progressive than quantitative research (as some have argued), or do qualitative researchers on the contrary face more elusive and perhaps difficult ethical challenges? The second question is called “solid evidence versus subjective anecdotes”. How should qualitative researchers respond to the current call for evidence? Should they seek legitimacy by accepting the dominant politics of evidence, or should they play by their own rules with the risk of increasing marginalization? The third question is “method versus intuition”. Should qualitative researchers strive for maximum transparency by following accepted methods, or should they proceed more intuitively like artists to create their stories? Both sides of the questions have their influential advocates today. I will argue that all three questions are handled most fruitfully by conceiving of qualitative research as a craft.

scholarly journals Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) Review Process Does Not Use Checklists

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 819-821
Author(s):  
Janice Morse
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Qualitative Health Research

Using checklists in manuscripts are perceived to indicate quality, transparency, and rigor. Generally, these checklists consist of a list of all of the strategies that may be used to ensure rigor and transparency. Beside each item, there is usually a box to check (or tick) to indicate whether a component is present, and a space on which to note the page each item is listed in the manuscript. Some of these forms also include space for the author to make brief comments to the reviewer. The intent is that the checklist guides the review process to ensure that all components are present in the article, and therefore, that the article is solid enough to publish. However, these checklists consist only of technical/mechanical management of the creation and sorting of data. These lists ignore the value of the product of the research: They do not address the originality, the substance, the contribution, and the potential results to the actual topic—which is after all the purpose of the project itself. Paradoxically, these checklist reviews are undermining the quality of qualitative inquiry. In seeking quality, the criteria for systematic reviews, clinical trials, and evidence have spilled over to represent quality criteria for all qualitative research. They are becoming commonplace for evaluating qualitative research by journal editors, directing the review process, and subsequent evaluation of the research. Of greatest concern is that checklists items are being used by authors themselves to represent their actual text (e.g., “data were saturated”), and the items for completing these forms are read by the reviewers and editors in lieu of reading the article itself (e.g., for signs of “saturation”). Furthermore, the use of these criteria by authors/researchers to guide the conduct of their research, yet meeting all these criteria, whether relevant or pertinent or necessary for their project, and may even invalidate the findings. In this way, these criteria are redefining processes of qualitative inquiry.

Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Qualitative Health Research: Opportunities, Concerns, and Recommendations

2021 ◽  
pp. 104973232110611
Author(s):  
Jill Owczarzak ◽  
Katherine C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Important Change ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Ethical Oversight

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.

scholarly journals Online focus group discussions: An attractive approach to data collection for qualitative health research

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mozhgan Rivaz ◽  
Paymaneh Shokrollahi ◽  
Abbas Ebadi
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Technical Issues ◽  
Authentic Data ◽  
Selection Of

Data collection is a centerpiece in qualitative research. The use of multiple sources in data collection can improve conceptual interest of a qualitative inquiry and make it interesting.  Online focus groups (OFGs) as a complementary choice to make the research project easier and engaging. Selection of the most appropriate method of data collection is essential for ensuring the trustworthiness. This commentary is noted to important issues involved in using OFG discussions for data collection in qualitative health research. In order to determine the suitability of data collection techniques, qualitative researchers are recommended for analysis the question, the research context, the preference of participants, technical issues, the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and provide authentic data to enrich their project by applying innovative approaches.

scholarly journals Applying Intersectionality With Constructive Grounded Theory as an Innovative Research Approach for Studying Complex Populations: Demonstrating Congruency

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 160940691989892
Author(s):  
Shahin Kassam ◽  
Lenora Marcellus ◽  
Nancy Clark ◽  
Joyce O’Mahony
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Complex Population ◽  
Structural Inequities

One goal of qualitative health research is to fully capture and understand stories of people who experience inequities shaped by complex interlocking structural and social determinants. With this social justice–oriented goal in mind, it is critical to use a methodological approach that appreciates prevailing inequities and oppression. In this article, we propose an innovative approach that joins qualitative health research methodology with critical inquiry. Specifically, we propose advancing constructive grounded theory (CGT) through applying intersectionality as an emergent critical social theory and an analytical tool. With our proposed approach being novel, minimal attempts to conceptualize and operationalize CGT with intersectionality exist. This article focuses on initiating theoretical conceptualization through focusing on demonstrating congruency. We are guided by this focus to seek connectedness and fit through analyzing historical and philosophical assumptions of CGT and intersectionality. In our article, we demonstrate congruency within four units of analysis: reflexivity, complexity, variability, and social justice. Through these units, we offer implications to applying intersectionality within CGT methodology. These include a foundation that guides researchers toward further conceptualizing and operationalizing this novel research approach. Implications also include innovatively exploring complex population groups who face structural inequities that shape their lived vulnerabilities. Our proposed research approach supports critical reflection on the research process to consider what shapes the researcher–participant relationship. This includes reflecting on analysis of power dynamics, underlying ideologies, and intermingling social locations. Thus, our conceptual paper addresses the call for evolving social justice methodologies toward inquiring into complex populations and generating knowledge that challenges and resists inequity.

scholarly journals The relevance of philosophical hermeneutics in qualitative research

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Nicholas Procter
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Philosophical Hermeneutics ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
The Way

Within a framework informed by the rhetoric of contemporary ethnography, philosophical hermeneutics, and nursing scholarship, this article focuses on the way data could be interpreted in qualitative health research. Opsomming Binne 'n raamwerk, omvorm deur die retoriek van kontemporere etnografie; filosofiese hermeneutiek en verpleegkundige vakkunde, fokus hierdie artikel op die wyse waarop data binne kwalitatiewe gesondheidsnavorsing, geinterpreteer kan word. *Please note: This is a reduced version of the abstract. Please refer to PDF for full text.

scholarly journals Qualitative Research Ethics: Enhancing Evidence-Based Practice in Physical Therapy

2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 615-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Townsend ◽  
Susan M. Cox ◽  
Linda C. Li
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Qualitative Health Research

BackgroundIncreasing challenges to health care systems and the prominence of patient-centered care and evidence-based practice have fostered the application of qualitative approaches in health care settings, prompting discussions of associated ethical issues in a range of disciplines.ObjectivesThe purposes of this work were to identify and describe the application and value of qualitative health research for physical therapy and to identify ethical considerations in a qualitative research study.DesignThis was a qualitative interview study with telephone follow-ups.MethodsForty-six participants were interviewed about their early experiences with rheumatoid arthritis. They also were asked what motivated them to volunteer for the study. To inform the discussion of ethics in qualitative health research, this study drew on the in-depth interviews, took a descriptive approach to the data, and applied the traditional ethical principles of autonomy, justice, and beneficence to the study process.ResultsEthical issues emerged in this qualitative health research study that were both similar to and different from those that exist in a positivist paradigm (eg, clinical research). With flexibility and latitude, the traditional principle approach can be applied usefully to qualitative health research.ConclusionsThese findings build on previous research and discussion in physical therapy and other disciplines that urge a flexible approach to qualitative research ethics and recognize that ethics are embedded in an unfolding research process involving the role of the subjective researcher and an active participant. We suggest reflexivity as a way to recognize ethical moments throughout qualitative research and to help build methodological and ethical rigor in research relevant to physical therapist practice.

scholarly journals The relevance of philosophical hermeneutics in qualitative research

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Procter
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Philosophical Hermeneutics ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
The Way

Within a framework informed by the rhetoric of contemporary ethnography, philosophical hermeneutics, and nursing scholarship, this article focuses on the way data could be interpreted in qualitative health research. OpsommingBinne 'n raamwerk, omvorm deur die retoriek van kontemporere etnografie; filosofiese hermeneutiek en verpleegkundige vakkunde, fokus hierdie artikel op die wyse waarop data binne kwalitatiewe gesondheidsnavorsing, gemterpreteer kan word.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document