Conducting Qualitative Research

1
Conducting Qualitative Research

• Aspects of Survey Design
• Rosaleen McElvaney

2
Methodology Vs Methods

• Methodologies
• Grounded Theory
• Discourse Analysis
• Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
• Ethnography
• Content analysis
• Emphasis on underlying theory

• Methods
• Interviews
• Text analyses
• Observation field notes
• Participation

3
Qualitative Research Methodology

• What is reality?
• How do we come to know reality?
• Whose reality?
• How can we come to know something from
  participants point of view?
• Can we measure that?
• What does measure mean?

4
Choice of MethodologyResearch Question

• Hypothesis Testing
• Who do children tell?
• How soon after the abuse do they tell?
• Are younger children more likely to tell
  immediately than older children?
• Do children tell sooner if abused by non-family
  member?

• Exploration
• How do children tell?
• What helps them tell?
• What stops them from telling sooner?
• How can we help children tell?

5
Gaps in the literature

• Mostly descriptive information based on
  quantitative studies, relying on file information
  of children and surveys of adults.
• Few qualitative studies relying on direct
  interviews with adults, even fewer with young
  people
• Limited attempts at theory building

6
My Research Question

• How children tell
• Exploring
• Attempting to understand, not describe, explain
  or predict
• Understanding a process
• Grounded Theory Methodology
• Developing theory grounded in the data
• Strauss Corbin (1998) Charmaz (2006)

7
Grounded Theory Methodology

• Theoretical Traditions
• Phenomenology Symbolic Interactionism,
  Psychology Sociology, Disclosure as a
  Psychosocial experience.
• Flexibility of data gathering procedures
• Sensitive topic/Vulnerable sample
• Child-led (process-oriented)
• Strauss Corbins approach
• Structured

8
Method

• Sample Children, Parents, Adults
• Data Gathering Interviews, Files
• Data Analysis
• Transcribing
• Open Coding
• Defining Properties Dimensions
• Constant Comparative Analyses
• Identifying similarities and differences
• Developing categories at more abstract level
• Data Management
• NVIVO software programme Excel

9
Coding

• Preparing transcripts
• Formatting Questions Answers
• Inserted Questions
• Section Coding chaos!!!
• New Tutorial Get on!
• More suited to interview with child
• Visual coding highlighted text in yellow
• Open coding Creating free nodes
• Developing tree nodes

10
(No Transcript)
11
What I found difficult

• Understanding nodes
• The shoebox or the contents?
• Misunderstanding The coding trap
• Trying to stay with the text, temptation to
  abstract
• Temptation to have questions as categories
• Both are issue of not imposing my views on text

12
What I found helpful

• Support
• Tutorials were invaluable
• nVivo manual read in parallel
• Re-reading Strauss Corbin
• Colleague at same stage of coding
• Trainer support, safety net
• Having to do memos!!
• Knowing this conference was on in September!!

13
Theory Building

• Profile coding for all nodes number of passages
• Highlighted those nodes most commonly used across
  documents
• 7 child interviews, those gt4
• Significant Nodes - Memo, Model

14
Significant Nodes

• Reasons for not telling telling will cause
  trouble, felt ashamed and embarrassed
• How child told were asked, denial
• Beliefs people dont believe children

• Feelings after told glad, relieved, regretted
• Beliefs wouldnt have told
• Advice Tell!

15
1st attempt at theory building

• Children believe that when a child is sexually
  abused, it is a good
• thing to tell someone about this . This is
  despite some
• ambivalence about their own experiences following
  telling they
• were glad and relieved but also regretted
  telling. However,
• children believe that people dont believe what
  children say.
• It is difficult for children to tell as evidenced
  in the extent to which children deny having been
  abused when directly asked.
• Yet children who disclose have invariably been
  asked, indicating the need to be asked. They
  wont tell if not asked or some pressure put on
  them to tell due to their beliefs that telling
  will cause trouble and they feel ashamed and
  embarrassed about what happened.

16
Conceptual Framework

• Active withholding
• Denial
• Disclosure as a process
• Pressure Cooker
• Emotional pressure
• Unplanned
• Confiding
• Choice of confidante boyfriend, trust
• Mutual sharing of confidences

17
What I found helpful

• Support
• Tutorials were invaluable
• nVivo manual read in parallel
• Re-reading Strauss Corbin
• Colleague at same stage of coding
• Trainer support, safety net
• Having to do memos!!
• Knowing this conference was on in September!!

18
What I found difficult

• Understanding nodes
• The shoebox or the contents?
• Misunderstanding The coding trap
• Trying to stay with the text, temptation to
  abstract
• Temptation to have questions as categories
• Both are issue of not imposing my views on text

19
Exercise - Coding
20
He used to say to me like are you alright like?
do you not want me touching you? and I was like
ah no like its grand and he d like are you
sure? cos you kindof and I was like going no
honestly like Im grand and em like. As it kept
going on like and I was like me and him were
kinda getting to a deeper relationship not a
deeper relationship but just kinda getting more
friends you know, telling each other different
things that like our families and everything.
Thats when I really kinda trust him dya know
that kinda way? Like he was able to tell me like
his mam and dad are separated and he was able to
tell me everything that kinda happened between
them and how he felt like so.. I was thinking
like he trusts me enough to tell me a secret like
that like I should be able to trust him. And like
so then I just told him what happened that night.
But I didnt actually tell him everything I just
told him that he was kinda feeling me and things
like that.
21
(No Transcript)
22
Guidelines for evaluation of QR Elliot, Fischer
Rennie (1999)

• Owning ones perspective open about own
  perspectives to enable readers to consider
  alternative interpretations of the data
• Sample should be described in sufficient detail
  to allow readers determine the applicability and
  relevance of the findings
• Grounding in examples should use examples of
  the data to demonstrate the analytic procedures
  utilitised and the resultant findings

23
Guidelines contd.

• Credibility checks by others, such as
  researchers, participants, colleagues, or by
  applying other methodologies to the data e.g.
  quantitative measures
• Coherence analyses should be presented in a
  coherent and integrated format while carefully
  preserving idiosyncrasies in the data
• Accomplishing general vs specific research tasks
  researchers should be clear about the aim of
  the study and explore the topic in sufficient
  detail to achieve this

24
Guidelines contd

• Resonating with readers findings should be
  presented to facilitate resonance with the reader
  so that their understanding and appreciation of
  the topic has been enhanced.

25
Rigour in qualitative research(Henwood
Pidgeon, 1992 Elliott, Fischer Rennie, 1999)

• Credibility
• Transparency paper trail memos, journal
• Use of maps, diagrams, modeller (nVivo)
• Consultation Feedback
• Member checking
• Keeping close to the data use of quotes
• Reflexivity

26
Analysis as cycling

• Circular process (diGregorio, 2003)
• Simultaneous involvement in data collection and
  analysis
• Abduction (Norton, 1999) theory generation is
  part of the process of research
• Deductive methods study is designed to test
  apriori hypotheses
• Inductive methods observations lead to theory
  generation

27
Theoretical Sampling

• Samples targeted based on theoretical codes that
  emerge from the data
• Intended to test theory further obtain support
  or highlight divergence
• As Burman (1994) points out, the emphasis in
  qualitative research studies is on divergence and
  variety rather than convergence and
  replicability.

28
Theoretical Saturation

• categories are saturated when gathering fresh
  data no longer sparks new theoretical insights,
  nor reveals new properties of your theoretical
  categories (Charmaz, 2006, p.113).
• Negative case analysis
• Keep sampling until categories are saturated
• theoretical sufficiency (Dey, 1999)

29
Theme driven Vs Structure driven

• Themes emerging from data should be active if
  they are to portray an underlying process
  (Charmaz, 2006)
• Problem identifying topics instead of actions
  and processes (p.69).
• What process(es) is at issue here? How can I
  define it? How does this process develop? (p.51)
• Seeking a theme-driven approach that reflected
  active processes, e.g. being believed, which had
  been a child node of reasons for not telling
  became a higher level category, reflecting a
  process in itself.

30
Writing Up

• Transparency made explicit
• Analysis continues throughout writing up
• Decisions re structure
• Grounding concepts in raw data
• Pulling it all together work in progress
• What study contributes to knowledge base
• What should follow?

31
References

• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory,
  Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
• Henwood, K. Pidgeon, N. (1992). Qualitative
  research and psychological theorizing, British
  Journal of Psychology, 83, 1, p.97-112
• Elliott, R., Fischer, C.T. Rennie, D.(1999).
  Evolving guidelines for publication of
  qualitative research studies in psychology and
  related fields. British Journal of Clinical
  Psychology, 38, 3, p.215-229.
• Strauss A. Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of
  Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). Thousand
  Oaks, CA Sage