Sign Language Interpreter-Mediated Qualitative Interview with Deaf Participants in Ghana: Some Methodological Reflections for Practice

Qualitative research is adventurous and creative, and committed to understanding unique human experiences in specific cultural ecologies. Qualitative interviewing with Deaf participants is far more challenging for hearing researchers who do not understand sign language, and for this reason such interactions may require the use of a sign language interpreter to facilitate the interview process. However, the quality of sign language interpreter-mediated interactions is likely to be compromised due to omissions, oversights, misinterpretations or additions that may occur during translation. An unthoughtful and poor interpretation of a communicative event by a sign language interpreter during a qualitative interview with Deaf participants may lead to an imposition of the interpreter’s or the researcher’s realities on Deaf participants’ lived experiences. It is thus important that qualitative researchers who conduct sign language interpreter-mediated interviews with Deaf participants employ practical and flexible ways to enhance such interactions. To understand the everyday realities of Deaf people amid the Covid-19 pandemic in Ghana, and document same to inform policy and practice, we conducted qualitative interviews with Deaf participants in Ghana. In this article, we draw insights from our data collection experiences with Deaf participants in Ghana to offer some useful methodological reflections for minimizing omissions in sign language-mediated qualitative interviews and thereby enhancing qualitative data quality. We particularly discuss how qualitative researchers can use language flexibility and post-interview informal conversations with a sign language interpreter to create a natural non-formal interactional atmosphere that engenders natural conversational flow to minimize interpretation omissions and differential power relations in sign language interpreter-mediated qualitative interviews with Deaf participants.

Ethnographies on Prisoner Reentry

This chapter discusses ethnographies of reentry, or the process of people returning from prison to the community. In the chapter, both ethnography and reentry are defined broadly. For example, qualitative interviewing, participation observation, and a combination thereof are included under an umbrella of “ethnography.” These studies share an inductive or abductive analysis, with iterative engagement between data and existing literature and theories, and therefore the possibility for theoretical development. While much of the focus is on the return of people to the community after a period of incarceration, key works that focus on adjacent concepts, such as desistance, or why and how people with a pattern and history of offending stop, are also included. The chapter begins with a discussion of major ethnographic works on reentry, organized by those that focus on the individuals experiencing reentry (including major subgroups, such as men or women, people of different race/ethnic groups, youth, or young adults) and those that focus on systems and organizations. Then, it discusses major methodological issues, including researcher positionality. It concludes with brief discussions of future directions, which build both on earlier findings and on new technologies, and policy suggestions that emerge from both findings and practices in ethnographic work.

Ethical and Methodological Considerations Interviewing Dementia Caregivers

Greater inclusion of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers in research is a global research priority and an expressed priority of dementia advocacy organizations. Absent inclusion of PLWD and caregivers, our understanding of dementia-related experiences and optimization of care and caregiving interventions is stymied. Qualitative interviewing techniques constitutes a primary method for obtaining PLWD and caregivers’ perspectives. Yet, there is little guidance on use of qualitative interviewing techniques among PLWD and caregivers or discussion of potential challenges encountered, despite unique vulnerabilities faced throughout the research process, which may be further heightened among historically excluded groups. Meaningful progress toward inclusion of PLWD and their caregivers in dementia research necessitates broader examination of associated methodological and ethical considerations that arise in the conduct of interviews. Drawing from a large multi-site qualitative study of dementia caregivers with exposure to high levels of social disadvantage, we used a multiple-triangulation qualitative approach across interview transcripts, memos, and interviewer discussions to identify methodological and ethical challenges that arose during the interviewing process. Challenges were identified across all phases of research, and included relational concerns with PLWD and family members due to disclosure of sensitive information, risk of re-traumatization in discussing past experiences, multiple roles of caregivers with conflicting perspectives, variable recall capacity, limited prior appraisal of caregiving, and request of interviewers for medical advice or selecting services . We outline events evidencing these challenges and proposed strategies (i.e. use of research consults, interview debriefing) to strengthen research capacity to anticipate and respond to them.

Ageless play: Sustaining intergenerational playgroup programmes

Intergenerational playgroups purposively bring older people, young children and their caregivers together to engage in play and develop reciprocal relationships. Intergenerational research focuses on the benefits for participants, with much less known about how these programmes sustain. This paper discusses and explores programme sustainability through the examination of two playgroups established through Playgroup Queensland’s Ageless Play programme. Through qualitative interviewing with playgroup practitioners and participants we aimed to understand how each of these playgroups had sustained beyond 3 years. The findings included the importance of mutual benefit for stakeholders, knowledge and skills of the playgroup facilitator and use of strategies to ensure ongoing interaction and engagement within the group. These findings are important for ensuring the continuation of intergenerational playgroup programmes.

Stakeholders and their view on forest-based bioeconomy in Slovakia

Within the concept of bioeconomy at Slovak level, forestry is often seen as a key sector. For that reason, the concept of forest-based bioeconomy gained a specific importance. To this concept is on the European level already paid increasing attention not only in research, but also in politics. Whether or not the forest-based bioeconomy will have a success in Slovakia is greatly dependent on stakeholders´ perception and attitude towards the concept. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to identify stakeholders´ perception of forest-based bioeconomy. To achieve this, we identified 13 stakeholders from various, bioeconomy-related, sectors that were suitable for qualitative interviewing. The respondents are representants of public and private organizations and are active in relevant areas. The study was conducted using structured interview consisting of 12 questions. Respondents in general tend to lean towards forest-based bioeconomy, as they feel that it brings more opportunities (for the forest and wood-processing sector, economy, industry, nature protection) than risks. However, a threat has presented itself during the study, being the fact that forest stakeholders do not feel to be sufficiently involved in bioeconomy discussion. For the bioeconomy to fulfil its role as an all-purpose weapon, there is an urgent need for more precise policy guidance and for involving of all relevant stakeholders into discussion.

Developing new ways to listen: the value of narrative approaches in empirical (bio)ethics

The use of qualitative research in empirical bioethics is becoming increasingly popular, but its implementation comes with several challenges, such as difficulties in aligning moral epistemology and methods. In this paper, we describe some problems that empirical bioethics researchers may face; these problems are related to a tension between the different poles on the spectrum of scientific paradigms, namely a positivist and interpretive stance. We explore the ideas of narrative construction, ‘genres’ in medicine and dominant discourses in relation to empirical research. We also reflect on the loss of depth and context that may occur with thematic or content analyses of interviews, and discuss the need for transparency about methodologies in empirical bioethics. Drawing on insights from narrative approaches in the social sciences and the clinical-educational discipline of Narrative Medicine, we further clarify these problems and suggest a narrative approach to qualitative interviewing in empirical bioethics that enables researchers to ‘listen (and read) in new ways’. We then show how this approach was applied in the first author’s research project about euthanasia decision-making. In addition, we stress the important ethical task of scrutinizing methodologies and meta-ethical standpoints, as they inevitably impact empirical outcomes and corresponding ethical judgments. Finally, we raise the question whether a ‘diagnostic’, rather than a ‘problem-solving’, mindset could and should be foregrounded in empirical ethics, albeit without losing a commitment to ethics’ normative task, and suggest further avenues for theorizing about listening and epistemic (in)justice in relation to empirical (bio)ethics.

Messiness in international qualitative interviewing: What I did, what I didn’t do, and a little bit about why

This is a reflexive account of the messiness experienced by a Persian-Australian doctoral researcher interviewing social work and human service practitioners and people seeking asylum in Germany. This data collection was part of a cross-national comparative study of the impacts of policy on the experiences and perceptions of people seeking asylum and social work and human service practitioners in Bavaria and Western Australia. Through interview stories and the work of others, this article offers a first person account of the complexities, ambiguities and dilemmas that can occur before, during and after data collection, how these were navigated through the use of Finlay's (2012) five lenses for the reflexive interviewer, and some of the lessons learnt.

Assessing the Applicability of Three Approaches to Design-Oriented Research

The three main approaches in inquisitive research design are qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods [1]. However, recent developments in the research field have resulted in multiple other approaches, borrowing ideas from a broad range of fields. One such approach is the practice-led approach. This approach involves an efficient design process, novel qualitative interviewing methods, together with data mining procedures from quantitative data collection [2]. This paper assesses the practice-led approach used in user experience (UX) design, together with three approaches: co-design, service design, and reflective practice.

The Intersection of Counseling Microskills and Qualitative Interviewing and Reporting in the Study of Sensitive Topics

Sensitive topics evaluation presents both a maze and a minefield to qualitative evaluators due to their complexity and their potential to create areas of misanalysis. For novice and experienced qualitatve practitioners alike, the evaluator can find the task of broaching complex content and developing trusting relationships to be serious methodological hurdles. In particular, the exercise of exploring and analyzing sensitive topics may increase strain as the evaluator seeks to access the abstract and intangible aspects of often distressing subjective content. To assist qualitative evaluators in overcoming these hurdles, the authors propose a collaborative analysis approach informed by counseling strategies and reflecting skills.