Qualitative Research: Methods and Methodology

This entry provides an overview of qualitative LGBTQ research. It begins by mapping out the qualities and character of studies that use this approach with particular attention to psycho-social research. It then highlights how reflexivity, the iterative process of self-identity making, has informed qualitative research, influencing both understandings of sexualities and also the underlying methodologies and research methods used. Finally, it considers how “the everyday” and a practices approach have generated significant insight on the materialities (lived experiences) and emotionality in qualitative research on LGBTQ lives

Qualitative research methods in psychology

In the scientific community, and particularly in psychology and health, there has been an active and ongoing debate on the relative merits of adopting either quantitative or qualitative methods, especially when researching into human behaviour (Bowling, 2009; Oakley, 2000; Smith, 1995a, 1995b; Smith, 1998). In part, this debate formed a component of the development in the 1970s of our thinking about science. Andrew Pickering has described this movement as the "sociology of scientific knowledge" (SSK), where our scientific understanding, developing scientific ‘products’ and 'know-how', became identified as forming components in a wider engagement with society’s environmental and social context (Pickering, 1992: 1). Since that time, the debate has continued so that today there is an increasing acceptance of the use of qualitative methods in the social sciences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Morse, 1994; Punch, 2011; Robson, 2011) and health sciences (Bowling, 2009; Greenhalgh & Hurwitz, 1998; Murphy & Dingwall, 1998). The utility of qualitative methods has also been recognised in psychology. As Nollaig Frost (2011) observes, authors such as Carla Willig and Wendy Stainton Rogers consider qualitative psychology is much more accepted today and that it has moved from "the margins to the mainstream in psychology in the UK." (Willig & Stainton Rogers, 2008: 8). Nevertheless, in psychology, qualitative methodologies are still considered to be relatively 'new' (Banister, Bunn, Burman, et al., 2011; Hayes, 1998; Richardson, 1996) despite clear evidence to the contrary (see, for example, the discussion on this point by Rapport et al., 2005). Nicki Hayes observes, scanning the content of some early journals from the 1920s – 1930s that many of these more historical papers "discuss personal experiences as freely as statistical data" (Hayes, 1998, 1). This can be viewed as an early development of the case-study approach, now an accepted methodological approach in psychological, health care and medical research, where our knowledge about people is enhanced by our understanding of the individual 'case' (May & Perry, 2011; Radley & Chamberlain, 2001; Ragin, 2011; Smith, 1998)

Application of Qualitative Methods in Health Research: An Overview

Qualitative research is type of formative research that includes specialized techniques for obtaining in-depth responses about what people think and how they feel. It is seen as the research that seeks answer to the questions in the real world. Qualitative researchers gather what they see, hear, read from people and places, from events and activities, with the purpose to learn about the community and to generate new understanding that can be used by the social world. Qualitative research have often been conducted to answer the question “why” rather than “what”. A purpose of qualitative research is the construction of new understanding. Here, we present an overview of application of qualitative methods in health research. We have discussed here the different types of qualitative methods and how we and others have used them in different settings/scenarios; sample size and sampling techniques; analysis of qualitative data; validity in qualitative research; and ethical issues

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.</p

Qualitative research methods in family medicine

published_or_final_versio

The need for qualitative methods in online user research in a digital library environment

Online users of digital libraries are multi-local, multi-lingual and live in multiple time-zones. Getting "purposeful data" in online user research requires that the research be done online because the users are there. This content analysis looks at a broad sample of international publications to address the following two research questions: 1) what methods do we use for online user research and 2) what are the purposes behind the research questions? The poster suggests that we currently use methods that match poorly to the purpose of the study and that there is a real need to use qualitative methods to study online users to be able to produce purposeful data

Qualitative Methods Used in Market Research

According to the given data, admittedly, there are two main types of market research: Quantitative Research (questionnaire surveys) and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research implies getting answers from a small number of respondents and the results of qualitative nature: ideas, perceptions, attitudes, associated values, preferences, suggestions. The Qualitative Research is conducted in the initial phase of studying one issue. The main purpose of Qualitative Research is to define the nature of the issue and to cater qualitative Information. For this paper work, the subject is a Qualitative Research (a focus-group) thinking out, a research where we were moderators. The research was conducted in order to oversee and to analyze the psycho-social influences of a large dismissal, as a consequence of the industrial restructuring programmes in Brasov, as well as the impact of the applied intervention measures. The research was conducted in December 2005.focus-group; qualitative research; labour market; mass fire; psycho-social influences.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN FOCUS-GROUP AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW

Qualitative research methods tend to be used more and more in academic research. The cost for these methods is quite low and the results may be very interesting and useful for many fields of study. However, the utility and the characteristic of qualitative research methods differ from subject to subject and from discipline to discipline. This paper comes close to a comparison of two qualitative research methods (focus-group and in-depth interview) used in investigating the opinion of academics, analyzing by comparison the results founded in a research conducted in the Bucharest University of Economics using focus group and in-depth interviews. The conclusions of the study reveal that apart of the limits states in the literature, there are other elements that can contribute to obtaining unrealistic results.Qualitative research methods, focus group, in-depth interview, academic research

A researcher's dilemma- philosphical and methodological pluralism

In many research textbooks the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is inadvertently linked with philosophical perspectives. This in essence creates a mutually exclusive relationship between method and philosophy. Initially researchers are led to believe, from these textbooks, that research is neatly divided into mutually exclusive categories, these being quantitative and qualitative research and ‘never the twain shall meet’. This divide is further strengthened with the inference that the relationship extends further; associating deduction with quantitative methods and similarly induction with qualitative methods. What happens in most texts is that qualitative research methods and quantitative research methods are set against each other as polar opposites (Crotty 1998, p19). This paper argues that methodological pluralism is acceptable but what is not acceptable is philosophical pluralism. By naively linking methods and approaches to specific philosophy researchers and students may miss out on potentially innovative or creative data collection methods. Alternatively and more importantly by feeling tied or constrained by their philosophical stance to particular methods and approaches, associated with them by textbooks, they may in fact reduce the credibility, validity, and or significance of the research. There maybe an elective affinity between certain philosophies and methods but this should not necessarily constrain the methods chosen