Qualitative Research Course LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

Qualitative Research Course LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

One of our readings for the week 9 class session was from Gorman and Clayton (chapter 8)on interviewing.

The focus questions answered in the chapter were:
-What are the principal advantages and disadvantages of interviewing as a qualitative research method?
-What preparation must be made before commencing a series of intensive interviews?
-What factors should be considered when deciding whether to tape record interviews and, if taped, whether to have the tapes transcribed?

Advantages of the interview as a means of data collection are speed and flexibility, a personal approach to gathering information and of paramount importance is the richness of the data. Richness of the data is really in the eyes of the beholder. What may seem "rich" to one researcher may not be for another. I believe one who deems data "rich" must be well versed in the topic and able to have those 'ah-ha' moments when the interviewee is providing information which has not been previously known. One of the draw backs of interviewing is the time involvement required. Also, if the researcher goes into an interview 'cold' without some preconceived ideas of potential directions in which to lead the interviewee, the researcher is not likely to gather information that will answer the research question or fulfill specific aims of the project. Sometimes the interviewee can get off on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the interview is even taking place and the interviewer must redirect the interviewee....not always the case...but certainly something we need to be prepared for. While not necessarily bad...the researcher can gain insights into the 'real world' of the person with whom they are speaking which may or may not address the topic at hand. One huge issue with conducting face-to-face interviews for a qualitative study involves the expense. People often under budget their projects not truly anticipating what costs are incurred in conducting qualitative research. These costs can include such things as travel, participant stipend, cost of audiorecording equipment and tapes, transcribing the data (pay someone to do it, the time involved in transcribing data can lead to an over run in the budget, the time involved in validating the textual transcript with the audio tape particularly if a paid transcriptionist is used) and other issues. When more than one coder is involved and they are not linked on a network for coding into a software program such as Atlas, the large amounts of paper involved in printing the transcript of the interviews is surprising. My limited experience has been in conducting semi-structured interviews which seems to be a combination of structured and unstructured interviews appropriately described by G&C in chapter 8. One item they did not seem to address were situations in which dyads are interviewed and two investigators are present, each interviewing one person in the dyad. They did not discuss the 'reliability or validity' of information gathered in interviews. Gathering information from an interview is akin to asking a patient to rate their pain...."it is what they say it is". When interviewing people with psychiatric issues, how do we know what they are telling us is the truth? C&G state on p130, "Your role is to Listen and learn, not to preach, praise or condem. Inappropriate or evaluative comments can disuade any iterviewee from volunteering anecdotes or 'insider comments". This "listen and learn" can be a trying concept when dealing with psychiatric clients who are existing within their own reality and not providing information which the investigator believes to be true. In one particular instance I was interviewing a client and in the middle of the interview she asked if I saw the little man in the window. There was NO man in the window, but in her reality there definintely was. I told her that I was sure he was real to her, but I infact did not see him. In non-clinical settings, such as interviews occurring within a home environment with multiple distractions, the interview can be quite challenging. I am certain that some things she shared in the interview were correct, as supported by the other member in the dyad, but when interviewing two people of a dyad in separate rooms, there is no immediate validation of 'the truth'. In dyad interviews, one can corroborate the other, but you have situations in which one member of the dyad does not have a firm grasp on reality which makes for a very interesting analysis....while we may get conflicting information, we must be true to the art of reserach and present our findings as they were captured. G&C did a pretty good job really in writing the chapter, but there are little nuances that they totally did not address particularly when interviewing 'vulnerable' populations. Overall, I think this was an excellent chapter but I can see that a chapter on interviewing vulnerable populations is needed to address some of my previous comments.

Qualitative Research Course LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

Qualitative Research Course LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

I enjoyed our guest speaker Katie's presentation. I had investigated participatory action research (PAR) in conducting research on effects of health care provider communication in discussing prostate cancer screenings with their patients. I believe the most work in this area has been in the business / marketing end of the spectrum in this country. However, the most prolific researchers I found using PAR were originating from some of the Eastern European countries, specifically the UK, as well as in New Zealand. There are fabulous websites dedicated to PAR. I found Katie's presentation to be exciting, particularly with the use of photographs to elicit responses from women about what it was like to be experiencing / going through menopause. Photographs are very personal and as she explained, she is able to get at some really personal experiences through the use of images via photographs that were taken by the research subjects. It opened communications that perhaps may not have been elicited in just sitting down and asking, "so tell me what your life is like". Very exciting work Katie is doing.

Establishing a theoretical framework in Qual Res

I feel that I'm just missing the boat somewhere. I was curious as well when one of our guest speakers had a theoretical framework posted with her slides. If qualitative research is about theory generation, particularly when the following the school of Glasser and Strauss, precisely where does this theoretical framework come in? Do I need to go back and look at the behavioral theorists and see what theories can be used to guide communication research in the Alzheimer's population?

One article I have on my review table is by Wright LK (1994). Who posed the question, "Does level of spousal interaction influence outcome?" in an article titled, "Alzheimer’s disease afflicted spouses who remain at home; can human dialectics explain the findings?" Soc Sci Med 1994. Apr.38(8);1037-46. The study investigated spouse caregivers. Wright cited Riegel’s dialectical theory of human development and Bowlby’s attachment theory. The duration of the study was 2years and there were 30 community dwelling dyads. The author found that the level of spousal interactions influence longitudinal outcomes for afflicted spouses.

This is 'along the lines' of what I'd like to investigate, but I'd really like to look at differing communication styles and outcomes with differing family caregivers not just the spouse. Both my proposed study and the Wright study deal with the interaction (verbal)...so are these theories that I need to investigate as possible springboards? Seriously, someone give me confirmation on this.

The Gorman and Clayton book is definitely thought provoking and I am definitely glad to be reading it NOW rather than later.

Qualitative Research Course LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

Qualitative Research Course LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data and the Recursive Research Process (fig 3.2 p 37 in G&C doesn't seem to 'fit' as easily as the diagram suggests. I think it is more difficult to conduct a secondary analysis. Not the analysis part per se, but knowing the data enough to formulate the question. Having been previously immersed in the data to answer the first question has made it difficult to totally step back and generate my own question. The topic was easy enough to come by based on my personal observations in the home settings of our subjects...but to get that specific question nailed down has been a real challenge. Also, I'd prefer to set up my transcripts differently than they were set up for the initial analysis, but in this case my advisor is pretty firm about how it should be done. She was one of the lead investigators on the parent study. I'm here to learn and there is a method to the madness I am sure and I'll 'get it' after I begin my own analysis I'm sure. Having never worked on qualitative analysis prior to working on the parent study, this is all new to me and I certainly appreciate the learning process, painful though it is at times.

Fluency Blog

Fluency Blog

Al,
While I was not present for this guest, I feel that your analogy to Pinnochio and Giuseppe and subsequent musings allowed me to get a real feel for the topic. Great observations on your part. Thanks for sharing them in this venue.
Dawn

Musings on Gorman & Clayton text

Qualitative Research Course LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

Readings for Gorman & Clayton, chapter 2 "Evaluating Qualitative Research" is an excellent source of information and the guidelines on page 23 are great reference that any person considering qualitative research should reference prior to proposing a qualitative study. The guidelines caused me to go back and reflect on my own proposal...did I address the issues they raised and if I didn't how is it possible to generate findings that are respectable?? I am reanalyzing transcripts from a study I worked on where two investigators were observing in the HOME of families. One observed was assigned to the person with a particular diagnosis and the other observer was assigned to the caregiver. I was the investigator present at each observation. Other observers varied, but I was the one "instrument" present at each observation throughout the study. It gave me a perspective that others did not have and I was able to observe that in fact, there were differences in the observations. These differences are what I would like to focus on. Differences in the style of communication used by different caregivers (husband, wife, son, daughter)and the relationship of the person receiving care (father, mother, wife, husband). I found the criteria on page 23 so helpful that I copied the page and posted it on the wall beside my desk as I attempt to proceed in the dissertation process. While I have 'an idea' of how my question should be presented, I believe looking at the criteria on page 23 will further assist me in asking a more direct research question and assist me in viewing the transcripts differently.

The authors cite Guba's view on qualitative research; that we should refer to repeatability anc credibility rather than reliability and validity and transferability and confirmability rather than generalizability. Having a reviewer who looks for reliability, validity, and generalizability as in quantative research would do everyone a favor if they read the article of Guba's cited by G &C in addition to Figure 2.2 which is basically a checklist that can be used when reviewing a qualitative research report.

Prior to writing up my own proposal I will carefully consider the 8 questions G&C have provided: in short they are
1. What are the assumptions on which it can be based?
here they referenced assumption that the methodology was correct
2. Are there any TERMS that should be defined? In nursing, I believe we ask "what is the operational definition?" "how is the construct defined, the concept defined, etc?"
3. What was the research question? The question drives the research and in previous courses I have come to appreciate "the question" because it literally drives the direction of the research and the conclusion should indeed be reflective of "the question".
4. Was the chosen methodology adequately described and did the researcher follow the methodology? THis has been a trouble spot for me in evaluating the data/transcripts I will be working with for my dissertation. I have read some articles that address the methodology but not in sufficient detail to be comfortable in being able to replicate it credibly in my own work. I've felt very inadequate to just jump in to data to analyze it...and get off the beaten path sometimes because as we've discussed in class, there is no 'coding cookbook' and one has to IMMERSE themselves in the data. My next goal will be to literally jump in....and IMMERSE myself in the text of the transcripts. Did what I physically observe at a home visit come across in the text of the transcripts??? Am I going in to it with a set of preconceived codes or with a blank slate??? Having a strong history in quantitative research I lean towards the preconceived codes, but have been encouraged to not lock myself in...and let the data guide me in finding the relevant codes evident in the transcripts. Blank slate.... difficult for a person heavily schooled in quantitative research, very difficult.
5. Do the findings appear reliable or repeatable?
6. Do the findings appear valid or credible?
7. How closely does the study follow the recursive research process.....the audit trail is so important...leaving those little memos to self...
8. What seems likely to be the impact of the study?

These questions while limited in number are screaming, "pay attention to me".

A scenario of Liam was provided. I feel like Liam! Overwhelmed by the review of the literature. After speaking with my advisor, it has been determined that I should have four different literature review tables to address issues of prime importance. One of my tables will address communication in the elderly (how is it different?) and the second table will address factors (?physiologic) that affect communication in persons with Alzheimer's disease and family caregivers. These two tables will be summarized in one paragraph each that reflects knowledge to date. The other two tables will address communication between persons with AD and the family caregiver and interventions used to improve communication between family caregivers and the person with AD.

So, our readings have helped me to focus more closely on my own weaknesses and to ask for guidance when I see myself stuck...as in a massive literature review and not having previously categorized it.

Qual research guests

We have had two very interesting qualitative researchers as guests. It turns out they are both nurses but with very different research interests. One is patient oriented and the other is more system/communication oriented (?interdisciplinarity).

I had a lot of questions/comments for both, perhaps because I'm a nurse and they were nurses doing the type of research I will be conducting for my dissertation.

I had a 'glitch' with Atlas and Dr. Schulman took time to work with me to facilitate getting my transcript files into Atlas...which was MOST appreciated.

Dawn Lea's Blog for LIS3600 at the University of Pittsburgh

01-09-2006
On 01-04-2006, the first day in Dr. Stuart Shulman's class in the Spring term at the University of Pittsburgh, each person in the room introduced themselves and gave a brief overview of their expectations for the class and experience they had with qualitative research. The vast majority of students were in various doctoral programs at the University. The experience among the students was very diverse; marketing, social sciences, biomedical research, and library sciences. Approximately half of the class were from other countries. There appeared to be an equal distribution of males and females. One student drove 500 miles roundtrip for class. A qualitative research knowledge inventory sheet was distributed for completion by the students. Students were given an assignment to generate a blog. After receiving a web address from Dr. Shulman, setting up the blog was extremely easy and painless. Four NYTimes articles will be coded using a grounded theory approach for the next class on 01-11-2006.