Essay: Ensuring Quality In Qualitative Approach - Concerns & Principles.

Introduction to Qualitative Research

How to ensure Quality in Qualitative Approach?

Teherani, Martimianakis, Stenfors-Hayes, Wadhwa & Varpio (2015) describe qualitative research as a method where the researcher systematically investigates a social phenomenon under its natural settings. The quantitative method of study is probably the most common method where the main aim is to find out the number of people who undertake a particular behaviour. The qualitative approach is an extension to this, and as Sutton & Austin (2015) points, the researcher accesses the thoughts of individuals enabling them to understand why people undertake a particular behaviour. Therefore, qualitative studies allow a deeper understanding of a specific social occurrence by acquiring personal insights, perceptions from participants as compared to quantitative studies which seek to find out the magnitude of the phenomenon. (Patton, 2015) In qualitative studies, the focus is on intangible aspects of a particular issue such as beliefs and opinions. However, as Yardley (2016) points, this unique nature of this methodology means that it defers various conventional rules and principles of research thereby raising serious quality concerns. This paper will, therefore, conduct an in-depth discussion on the qualitative research concept, assess the quality concerns prevailing and ways to solve these concerns.

While there is a common wide acceptance of qualitative research design as an appropriate method of research particularly in the social sciences field, the approach has had its share of criticism. A common criticism levelled against qualitative research is that it cannot be generalised (Fitzpatrick, 2011). A key objective of every research undertaking is that broad inferences can be drawn from the study that can then be inferred to the broader population. However, as Leung (2015) points, generalisation usually is an unexpected attribute in qualitative research. Generalisation is a vital quality standard that research studies should meet. For generalisation to apply, the particular conditions in the study such as the sample population statistics, context, and time have to be similar to the states in the broader population. However, in qualitative research, the sharp focus is on acquiring deep contextualized understandings of particular cases which in most cases does not represent the general population (Patton, 2015). As Leung (2015) notes, in qualitative studies, a particular phenomenon is studied in a specific locality or distinct ethnic group. Therefore, the findings cannot be applied to the broader public. The lack of generalisation then raises serious questions regarding the feasibility of qualitative research and the rationale of dedicating time and resources towards a study that cannot be generalised. As Laws, Harper, Jones & Marcus (2013) further note, it is difficult to acquire funding for the same as major organisations such as the UN only fund studies that allow generalisation. Therefore, the lack of generalizability for qualitative research is a crucial issue.

Common Criticisms of Qualitative Research

Validity and reliability are essential quality thresholds for any research undertaking. According to Leung (2015) validity entails the suitability of the various processes, methodologies and data applied to the research while reliability is about the consistency of the results and their replicability. The drawback with qualitative research is that there are no common universal criteria for assessing the validity and reliability of a study. In quantitative studies, there are established standards for testing the validity and reliability of research. However, for qualitative research designs, validity and reliability are determined by the precautions applied by the researcher to guarantee the two quality aspects. For example, in an element such as sampling, in quantitative research, there is a guiding criterion on what sample size and features would be appropriate for a particular population. This is not the case for qualitative research with the method heavily relying on the researcher’s ability to identify the sampling technique suitable for the analysis on the basis of its aims and context (Sutton & Austin, 2015). The ambiguity surrounding the determination of reliability and validity in qualitative research, therefore, raise serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of the method.

As earlier denoted, due to lack of a universal structure, enhancing quality in qualitative research is wholly dependent on the quality measures placed by the researchers. Yardley (2016) outlines three vital principles that qualitative researchers can utilise to guarantee quality findings in their study. Sensitivity to context is the first principle. This principle is built on the appreciation that study issues and contexts differ from time to time and Yardley (2016) urges researchers to have an extra awareness regarding the contexts of their study. The first context awareness for any researcher should be on existing theory. Researchers should extensively identify relevant literature on similar topics and most importantly, rationally interpret the data. The empirical evidence from existing literature is essential regarding giving the study an extensive grounding from where concepts and arguments can be highlighted and queried. The second type of context entails socio-cultural contexts. Qualitative research is based on opinions, beliefs and insights which largely depend on the communication between the researcher and participants. Communication is a delicate issue with aspects such the researcher’s behaviour and characteristics having a profound effect on the effectiveness of communication between them and the participants (Fortune, Reid & Miller, 2013). Therefore, it becomes necessary for the researcher to take into account the prevailing socio-cultural context in their research settings and consider how their characteristics affect their engagement with participants. The researcher can then tailor their behaviours and characteristics to fit into these contexts thus positively influencing the participants’ involvement. This will then guarantee quality data collection.

Key Principles for Ensuring Quality in Qualitative Research

Yardley (2016)’s second principle encompasses the aspects of rigour, transparency, commitment, and coherence. This is in regards to the processes of data collection, analysis and reporting for any research undertakings. Rigour entails ensuring that data collection and analysis is comprehensive and complete. Yardley (2016) proposes triangulation method as a way of collecting data that is exhaustive and all rounded. Transparency entails the disclosure of all aspects relevant to the research. Providing various details of the study such as data collection and analysis methods and how multiple factors in these processes affected the research is crucial to allow the audience to discern various patterns of the findings (Patton, 2015). Commitment refers to the researcher’s overall engagement to the study. Yardley (2016) places a responsibility on the researcher to ensure that they acquire the necessary skills and competence in the methodology while also ensuring that they adequately immerse themselves in the research’s relevant data. Coherence encompasses a link between the research question, methodology and the findings in the collective study narrative. An interaction between the four aspects will lead to the production of credible research with relevant results.

The third principle is the impact and importance of the research. Yardley (2016) argues that the most important criterion for judging any research is on its impact and utility. A research’s ultimate value is determined by whether its objectives are met and most importantly its applicability and relevance to the community in context. With qualitative analyses focusing on specific localities, it is only vital that any research undertakings create a practical solution to a current local problem. This would contribute to making qualitative study undertakings feasible.

The qualitative research’s principles assist in understanding the researcher’s role in this type of study. Ensuring context awareness is an essential role for the researcher. The researcher has to understand the research topic’s academic context to ensure the appropriate collection of empirical evidence on the same. My colleagues at the agency believe that qualitative research lacks rigour. However, by providing a proper empirical evidence background to the qualitative insights in the study makes it both informative and comprehensive. Additionally, the researcher should identify the socio-cultural context of the research, and as Tonon (2015) advises, they should define how the setting affects their study. With this awareness, the researcher should then modify the study characteristics to fit into the relevant socio-cultural context. Also, through the understanding of context the researcher can easily ensure empathic neutrality. Prior (2017) defines empathic neutrality as a show of sensitivity and mindfulness as the researcher works with the participants. It is worth noting that the mindfulness concept is both an ethical and quality concern where the researcher’s judgements and inner perceptions can affect the inferences they make in their analysis. Therefore, through context awareness researchers can fit their investigative analysis to the appropriate academic and sociocultural context, a crucial prerequisite for reliability.

The Role of the Researcher

Critical reservations by the individuals at the agency are that qualitative research lacks reliability and credibility. As earlier mentioned, with no clear quality assessment criteria, quality assurance in qualitative studies is determined by the researcher’s competence and the quality enhancement measures they put in place. This highlight’s the researcher’s commitment role where they should ensure that they acquire the necessary skills required for the adopted approach (Yardley, 2016). I recommend that the agency embark on a capacity building programme that equips the staff with adequate qualitative methodology skills for example proper interviewing skills. In this way, their perceptions will change regarding the validity and credibility of the strategy. Commitment also extends to the researcher’s immersion in the study which enables them to probe deeper for information thus providing in-depth analysis.

Reflexivity is also an essential role of the researcher. It entails the detailed disclosure of all the research’s aspects that are deemed relevant (Medico & Santiago-Delefosse, 2014). Through reflexivity, the researcher describes their whole research journey to their audience outlining the critical decisions they made and their rationale. Judging by how a researcher arrived at a particular inference, the reader can easily discern the validity of a study. Another significant researcher’s role is to ensure that research is feasible (Locke, Spirduso & Silverman, 2014). Feasibility, in this case, regards the impact of the study on its settings. Research is deemed feasible if it can help bring positive change to the community. Therefore, by adopting qualitative research methods, the CERT can build on its objective of ensuring a long-term positive change in the community it serves.

In conclusion, we can say that qualitative research method provides an appropriate way of acquiring deeper insight regarding a particular social phenomenon. However, due to its nature, the technique has drawn lots of criticism regarding its validity, reliability, and lack of generalizability.  A look at the methodology’s principles demonstrates ways as to how credibility and validity can be enhanced. Most importantly is the appreciation that most conventional rules of research are not applicable to this type of methodology and despite its ambiguity, the method still is of great benefit to the society and the research field.

References

Fortune, A., Reid, W., & Miller, R. (2013). Qualitative Research in Social Work. Columbia University Press.

Fitzpatrick, J. (2011). Encyclopedia of Nursing Research (3rd Ed.). Springer.

Laws, S., Harper, C., Jones, N., & Marcus, R. (2013). Research for development. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.161306

Locke, L., Spirduso, W., & Silverman, S. (2014). Proposals That Work. Sage.

Medico, D., & Santiago-Delefosse, M. (2014). From Reflexivity to Resonances: Accounting for Interpretation Phenomena in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(4), 350-364. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2014.915367

Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Prior, M. (2017). Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review, 0(0).

Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3). doi: 10.4212/cjhp.v68i3.1456

Tonon, G. (2015). Qualitative Studies in Quality of Life Management. Springer.

Teherani, A., Martimianakis, T., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Wadhwa, A., & Varpio, L. (2015). Choosing a Qualitative Research Approach. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 7(4), 669-670. doi: 10.4300/jgme-d-15-00414.1

Yardley, L. (2016). Demonstrating the validity of qualitative research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 295-296. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262624