Qualitative research

About: Qualitative research is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 39957 publications have been published within this topic receiving 2390470 citations. The topic is also known as: Qualitative method.

Fitting Oval Pegs Into Round Holes: Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals

Abstract: A study of qualitative researchers who have submitted and/or published their research in top-tier North American organizational and management journals reveals the evaluative criteria-in-use at the...

Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods

Abstract: Objective: Qualitative research is increasingly valued as part of the evidence for policy and practice, but how it should be appraised is contested. Various appraisal methods, including checklists and other structured approaches, have been proposed but rarely evaluated. We aimed to compare three methods for appraising qualitative research papers that were candidates for inclusion in a systematic review of evidence on support for breast-feeding. Method: A sample of 12 research papers on support for breast-feeding was appraised by six qualitative reviewers using three appraisal methods: unprompted judgement, based on expert opinion; a UK Cabinet Office quality framework; and CASP, a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Papers were assigned, following appraisals, to 1 of 5 categories, which were dichotomized to indicate whether or not papers should be included in a systematic review. Patterns of agreement in categorization of papers were assessed quantitatively using κ statistics, and qualitatively using cross-case analysis. Results: Agreement in categorizing papers across the three methods was slight (κ =0.13; 95% CI 0.06-0.24). Structured approaches did not appear to yield higher agreement than that by unprompted judgement. Qualitative analysis revealed reviewers' dilemmas in deciding between the potential impact of findings and the quality of the research execution or reporting practice. Structured instruments appeared to make reviewers more explicit about the reasons for their judgements. Conclusions: Structured approaches may not produce greater consistency of judgements about whether to include qualitative papers in a systematic review. Future research should address how appraisals of qualitative research should be incorporated in systematic reviews. © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd 2007.

Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review

Abstract: This article illustrates how various qualitative traditions could be used in educational research by describing and comparing the traditions of ecological psychology, holistic ethnography, cognitive anthropology, ethnography of communication, and symbolic interactionism. The analysis shows that qualitative traditions present diverse approaches to research and that each tradition forms a coherent whole, comprising internally consistent assumptions about human nature and society, foci of study, and methodology. Implications of the analysis suggest that qualitative traditions may offer a richer and fuller understanding of education. Educational researchers could conduct either basic or applied research within these traditions, or they could adapt the traditions to address new problems. Moreover, it is suggested that educators who wish to perform qualitative research should seek to employ the totality of a tradition, not just generic assumptions or methods.

Qualitative Research: Observational methods in health care settings

Abstract: Clinicians used to observing individual patients, and epidemiologists trained to observe the course of disease, may be forgiven for misunderstanding the term observational method as used in qualitative research. In contrast to the clinician or epidemiologist, the qualitative researcher systematically watches people and events to find out about behaviours and interactions in natural settings. Observation, in this sense, epitomises the idea of the researcher as the research instrument. It involves “going into the field”—describing and analysing what has been seen. In health care settings this method has been insightful and illuminating, but it is not without pitfalls for the unprepared researcher. The term “observational methods” seems to be a source of some confusion in medical research circles. Qualitative observational studies are very different from the category of observational studies (non-experimental research designs) used in epidemiology, nor are they like the clinical observation of a patient. Observational methods used in social science involve the systematic, detailed observation of behaviour and talk: watching and recording what people do and say. Goffman neatly captured this distinct research method with his recommendation that, in order to learn about a social group, one should “submit oneself in the company of the members to the daily round of petty contingencies to which they are subject.”1 Thus, observational methods can involve asking questions and analysing documents, but the primary focus on observation makes it distinct from a qualitative research interview (see the next paper in this series) or history taking during patient consultation. Another crucial point about qualitative observation is that it takes place in natural settings not experimental ones; hence, this type of work is often described as “naturalistic research.” View this table: In an attempt to minimise the impact on the environment being studied the researcher sometimes adopts a “participant observer” role, becoming involved in the activities …