View
1.242
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Computer-Aided Qualitative Research Europe
7 & 8 Oct 2010, Lisbon
For more information about our events, please visit:
http://www.merlien.org
Quality in Qualitative Research: The role of the software’s in Quality
Assurance
SÍLVIA SILVA
SARA RAMOS
ISCTE-IUL
3rd European workshop on COMPUTER-AIDED QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 2010
OVERVIEW
Main points of our presentation:
• Aims
• Background
• Literature review and results
• Quality and CAQDAS
Additionally :
- Distribution of Some Examples
- Distribution of List of Main References
AIM
To present a review of quality criteria in Qualitative Research and explore and conclude about the potential roles that software packages may play in quality assurance.
Specific goals:
(1) Identify the criteria used
(2) Identify the most common/consensual criteria;
(3) Link quality to CAQDAS
(4) Contribute for debate and consensus (?)
Background
• In the last thirty years several authors proposed criteria for considering when approaching the issue of Quality in Qualitative Research (QR).
• It is somehow recognized that we are far from having shared quality assumptions
Background: Examples on well-known criteria presented in books
• Guba and Lincoln (1985) Trustworthiness :
• Transferability ; • Credibility ; • Dependability; • Confirmability
• Bauer & Gaskell (2000) Accountability:
• Confidence • Relevance
• Flick (2007/9) • Transparency, • Documentation • Writing
Research accountability (Gaskell & Bauer, 2000)
• Confidence (c)
(results represent the reality studied)
• Relevance (r)
(utility and importance)
� Triangulation and Reflexivity (c)
� Transparency and procedural clarity (c)
� Corpus construction (c,r)
� Thick description (c,r)
� Local surprise (r)
� Communicative validation (r)
Background: Why to focus on Quality
• The relevance of quality criteria: epistemological issues and
practical issues • A well-written description of the rigour in research analysis
should convince readers that the study findings are credible and trustworthy (Belgrave et al., 2002).
Moreover: • QR Internal needs (development and proliferation)
(Flick,2007) • QR external challenges (e.g. competition: publication;
funding; teaching and curriculum planning) (Flick,2007)
The big question:
One size fits all?
Literature Review: Search Approach (I)
• Covering last 20 years
• Databases:
- Psycharticles;
- ABI/INFORM;
- ISI
- Google academics
• Search in the Abstracts and Titles
Literature Review: Search Approach (II)
• Papers focusing Quality Issues/Criteria in Qualitative Research
• Keywords used:
Quality+ Qualitative Research/Methods;
Validity+ Qualitative Research/Methods;
Rigor/our + Qualitative Research/Methods; Trustworthiness +Qualitative Research/Methods;
all the above with Computer Programs, Software and CAQDAS
• Results: > 100 papers ; >30 specifically focusing quality as the main topic
Literature Review: Main Characteristics
• Huge progressive increase of papers about Quality Issues in QR or QS in the last 20 years
• Journals: Either general (Methods in General; Methods in QR); either in specific fields (mainly: health; business; education; communication)
Literature Review: Main Characteristics
Therefore:
Papers focusing QR Quality in specific research fields VS generic criteria and recommendations
• Papers departing from validity & reliability and framing them in the QR VS papers against that assumptions
Literature Review: Main Findings
Main types of papers focus:
• Criteria used by Journals and Referees • Specific Criteria for specific QR • Generic Criteria for all QR • Techniques for assuring quality: Audit;
triangulation; … • Quality and CAQDAS
Most cited Authors: • Guba and Lincoln (1985)
LR Results – Journals and Referees criteria
• Papers focusing specific Criteria used by Journals and Referees to sustain Qualitative Papers Review
Examples:
• Academy of Management Journal Editors (2002, 2004 & 2009)
• Savall et al. (2008)
• Crescentini & Mainard (2009)
Academy of Management Journal 2009 Editors: Tips for Writing Qualitative Papers
1. Make sure your paper includes “the basics”:
• Discuss why this research is needed
• Are you building a new theory or elaborating existing theory?
• Why did you choose this context and this “unit of analysis”?
• How did you get from your data to your findings?
2. Show data in a smart fashion
3. Think about using/organizing figures
4. Think about telling a story
5. Consider “modeling” someone whose style you like who
consistently publishes qualitative
10 (generic) Criteria used by Reviewers in an European
Management Journal
Savall et al. (2008)
• Rigor • Formulation • Coherency • Originality • Relevance • Explication • Positioning • Contribution • Rationale • Delimitation
LR Results – Specific Criteria
• Papers focusing specific Criteria for specific Qualitative Approaches: epistemological adequate criteria
• For instance: adequate to the the type of analysis: Content Analysis (e.g., Lombard et al., 2002); Grounded Theory (e.g., Chiovitti & Piran, 2002; Elliot et al., 2005); Discourse Analysis (e.g., Nixon, 2007 )
LR Results – Specific Criteria
• For instance:
Characterizing the Philosophy and Politics of Quality in QR. Distinguishing: review of quality indicators attached to
- Foundational;
- Quasi-Foundational;
- Non-Foundational QR
(Amis & Silk, 2008 )
LR Results - Generic Criteria or Recomendations I
• Papers focusing specific Criteria for generic/transversal Qualitative Approaches: criteria that applies to all approaches
LR Results - Generic Criteria or Recomendations II
Authors Criteria
Akkerman et al. (2008)
•Visibility •Compreehensibility •Acceptability
•AUDITING
Morrow (2005) •Social validity •Subjectivity and Reflexivity •Adequacy of data •Adequacy of interpretation
Guidelines for Writing QR
Shank & Villela(2004)
•Investigative depth •Interpretative adequacy •Illuminative fertility •Participatory accountability
Whitemore et al., (2001)
•Primary Criteria (for all QR) •Secondary Criteria •Tecnhiques
Primary criteria: Credibility; Authenticity; Integrity and Criticality Techniques: Design consideration; Data generating; Analytic; Presentation
Meyrick (2008): Good Qualitative Research
Rolfe (2006)
“the commonly perceived quantitative–qualitative dichotomy is in fact a continuum which requires a continuum of quality criteria, or to recognize that each study is individual and unique, and that the task of producing frameworks and predetermined criteria for assessing the quality of research studies is futile.”
“individual judgments of individual studies”
Quality Objects
• Theory, Method and Epistemological Coherence
• Design and Report of the Research
• Data Collection
• Data Analysis
• Adequate methodological approach considering the analytic grounding
General:
• Transparency
• Reflexivity
LR Results – Quality and CAQDAS
• Papers focusing the role of CAQDAS on assuring Rigor and Quality
LR Results – Quality and CAQDAS Authors Focus
Lu & Shulman (2008) CAQDAS and Rigour and Flexibility and the use of CAT (Coding Analysis Toolkit)
Rambaree (2007) Rigour in Qualitative Social Research: The Use of a CAQDAS Atlas.ti example
Sin (2007)
CAQDAS for achieving Transparency Illustration with NVivo
Sinkovics et al. (2008)
CAQDAS for achieving trustworthiness of QR in Business Research
Westphal (2000)
N4 and Trustworthiness: Searching for negative evidence – Easier to Find Inconsistency Linking Data and conclusions and theory Conducting Coding Checks Audit Trails and Conducting Audits Detailed reporting
What Software Do (Gibbs, Lewins & Silver, 2005;
Lewins & Silver,2009) • Structure work (access and organization of all project elements)
• 'Closeness to data' interactivity (quick access to source data files)
• Explore data
• Code and Retrieve Functionality
• Project Management and Data Organisation
• Search and interrogating the database
• Writing tools - Memos, comments and annotations,
• Output - Reports to view a hard copy or export to another package.
Advantages (Gibbs, Lewins & Silver, 2005; Lewins &
Silver,2009)
• Organised and controllable data set
• Support for coding
• Searching Text and codes
• Support for comparative analysis
• Models, networks and diagrams
• Interface with quantitative data
Qualitative Softwares – Possible contributions for quality (I)
•Data and Coding:
More Easy to Be sure that all data are analysed (assure that
participants perspectives are covered) and code and retrieve
approach more complete and rigorous
Reporting:
More adequate support for reporting results and allowing
simple and complex results
Qualitative Softwares – Possible contributions for quality (II)
•Good support for assisting a systematic analysis approach:
allows and simplifies the use of “equivalent” procedures to all
the data
•TRANSPARENCE and Reflexivity :
Allowing a more easy access to the data analysis (e.g., Codes;
Quotations; Memos); methodological analytic decisions, and
reflexions (Memos, Comments)
•Facilitation of TRIANGULATION and AUDIT:
Simplifies the combination of different sources of data (or
other type of triangulation); team work; …
Qualitative Softwares – Possible contributions for quality (III)
Besides:
allows the researchers in assuring quality when
following most of the specific recommendations
But:
it can also be misused and give “overconfidence”
Conclusions (I)
• There is not a single criteria solution adequate for all “one best way”
• Quality issues cover both theoretical issues and technical problems
• There is an ethical obligation to demonstrate “Rigor” and Integrity of research
• Quality Reflexion is needed but we are still far from consensus: We suggest some debate on this
Conclusions (II)
Anyway:
• Debate and establishing “criteria” about Quality of QR contributes for a bigger awareness of methodological decisions during QR (Seale, 1999)
• CAQDAS may play an important role but it always depend on it is used
Conclusions (III)
Myth 94:
qualitative researchers will agree about
validity
Sparkes (2001)
Our Future work on this subject
• First Paper in Preparation
• Project about the Quality of Qualitative Research and CAQDAS(without funding at the moment) in the beginning; looking forward possible cooperation/network for proposal to be submitted to the Portuguese Science Foundation
References
A list with the Main References will be distributed
Computer-Aided Qualitative Research Europe
7 & 8 Oct 2010, Lisbon
For more information about our events, please visit:
http://www.merlien.org
Recommended