Qualitative research & evaluation methods

Systematic text condensation: a strategy for qualitative analysis

Abstract: Aims: To present background, principles, and procedures for a strategy for qualitative analysis called systematic text condensation and discuss this approach compared with related strategies. Metho...

Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research

Abstract: Telephone interviews are largely neglected in the qualitative research literature and, when discussed, they are often depicted as a less attractive alternative to face-to-face interviewing. The absence of visual cues via telephone is thought to result in loss of contextual and nonverbal data and to compromise rapport, probing, and interpretation of responses. Yet, telephones may allow respondents to feel relaxed and able to disclose sensitive information, and evidence is lacking that they produce lower quality data. This apparent bias against telephone interviews contrasts with a growing interest in electronic qualitative interviews. Research is needed comparing these modalities, and examining their impact on data quality and their use for studying varying topics and populations. Such studies could contribute evidence-based guidelines for optimizing interview data.

Framework Analysis: A Qualitative Methodology for Applied Policy Research

Abstract: Policies and procedures govern organizations whether they are private or public, for-profit or not-for profit. Review of such policies and procedures are done periodically to ensure optimum efficiency within the organization. Framework analysis is a qualitative method that is aptly suited for applied policy research. Framework analysis is better adapted to research that has specific questions, a limited time frame, a pre-designed sample and a priori issues. In the analysis, data is sifted, charted and sorted in accordance with key issues and themes using five steps: familiarization; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; and mapping and interpretation. Framework analysis provides an excellent tool to assess policies and procedures from the very people that they affect.

Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences

Abstract: Introduction Using an appropriate research method for inquiry is critical to successful research. Grounded theory and qualitative content analysis share similarities. Both are based on naturalistic inquiry that entails identifying themes and patterns and involves rigorous coding. They are both used to analyze and interpret qualitative data; however, the similarities and differences in grounded theory and qualitative content analysis have not been clarified in the literature (Priest, Roberts, & Woods, 2002), nor have they been consistently considered. To illustrate, both have been considered equivalent approaches to interpret qualitative data (e.g., Priest et al., 2002). Grounded theory was treated as a research methodology, and content analysis as a method (e.g., Crotty, 2003); furthermore, grounded theory was considered a theoretical framework and content analysis a research method of textual data analysis (e.g., Patton, 2002). Qualitative content analysis was considered a strategy for the analysis of qualitative descriptive studies (Sandelowski, 2000) and a technique with overtones of other research methods, such as ethnographic and grounded theory (Altheide, 1987). Qualitative content analysis was unknown as a research method until recently, especially in English-speaking countries, because of the dominance of quantitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012). Moreover, a researcher's approach purportedly following grounded theory actually seems closer to qualitative content analysis or other methods (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003; Suddaby, 2006). Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) cited the discrepancy between "method claims and the actual use of methods" (p. 905) in research papers. Novice researchers, especially students who want to conduct qualitative research, are often confused by the characteristics of the two as result of the lack of comparative references. Some researchers who stated they had used grounded theory actually used qualitative content analysis, which incorporates some procedures of grounded theory, such as open coding or memoing (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003). Thus, the purpose of this paper is to clarify ambiguities about the characteristics of grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. Using our own research as examples, we have discussed the similarities and differences in the two in the following six areas: a) background and philosophical basis, b) unique characteristics of each method, c) goals and rationale of each method, d) data analysis process, e) outcomes of the research, and f) evaluation of trustworthiness of research. We have also discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each. Through this paper, we expect to provide knowledge that can assist novice researchers in the selection of appropriate research methods for their inquiries. Background and Philosophical Basis Grounded Theory The term grounded theory was introduced in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) by Glaser and Strauss as "the discovery of theory from data--systematically obtained and analyzed in social research" (p. 1). Instead of verification of theories, they introduced a research method to arrive at a "theory suited to its supposed uses" contrasting with a "theory generated by logical deduction from a priori assumptions" (p. 3). According to Strauss and Corbin (1994) it is "a general methodology, a way of thinking about and conceptualizing data" (p. 275). The Grounded Theory Institute, run by Glaser, one of the founders of grounded theory, defined it as follows: Grounded Theory is an inductive methodology. Although many call Grounded Theory a qualitative method, it is not. It is a general method. It is the systematic generation of theory from systematic research. It is a set of rigorous research procedures leading to the emergence of conceptual categories. …

Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?

Abstract: Saturation is a core guiding principle to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet little methodological research exists on parameters that influence saturation. Our study compared two approaches to assessing saturation: code saturation and meaning saturation. We examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation in each approach, what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. Examining 25 in-depth interviews, we found that code saturation was reached at nine interviews, whereby the range of thematic issues was identified. However, 16 to 24 interviews were needed to reach meaning saturation where we developed a richly textured understanding of issues. Thus, code saturation may indicate when researchers have "heard it all," but meaning saturation is needed to "understand it all." We used our results to develop parameters that influence saturation, which may be used to estimate sample sizes for qualitative research proposals or to document in publications the grounds on which saturation was achieved.