Qualitative Research, Coursework Example

Abstract

Qualitative research is an in-depth, intensive research strategy that utilizes a number of data collection methods to engage with participants and texts, synthesizing the results in a process known as bricolage. With its focus on subjective participant ideas, attitudes, and beliefs, qualitative research is largely guided by an interpretivist paradigm of ontology and epistemology, one that assumes that meaning is constructed by the human subjects under study in the bounded semiotic narratives that define their social worlds. As such the researcher seeks to observe study participants in a naturalistic setting, rather than controlling their actions and research outcomes. In addition to ethical standards such as informed consent and not harming the participants, qualitative research holds intrinsic challenges of researcher bias and involvement; nonetheless, it is the most effective way to garner large amounts of in-depth data about participants’ subjective perceptions.

Qualitative research affords the nursing student the opportunity to engage with a study population in a fashion that, whilst time- and labor-intensive, is nonetheless immensely rewarding in terms of the useful data generated regarding study participant attitudes, beliefs, values and practices, etc. Using such research strategies as interviews, direct observation, and written documents, qualitative research can deconstruct the semiotic meanings of lived experience, rendering them into an analyzable form. With its emphasis on participant observation and lived experience, fieldwork, and emergent research design, qualitative research offers a flexible and powerful methodology for understanding complex problems.

Qualitative inquiry is characterized by a number of singular features, all of which pose particular challenges—and hold particular opportunities—for the nursing researcher. First and most integrally, according to Patton (2002) qualitative data may be generated by three principal methods:  “(1) in-depth, open-ended interviews; (2) direct observation; and (3) written documents” (p. 4). As Fain (1998) explained, qualitative research utilizes “methods of inquiry that emphasize subjectivity and the meaning of the experience for the individual” (p. 6). Qualitative research is often conducted by means of fieldwork, wherein the researcher spends extended periods of time “in the setting under study—a program, an organization, a community…” (Patton, 2002, p. 4). And unlike quantitative studies, with their carefully and meticulously detailed research designs, qualitative studies are characterized by emergent design: the design of the qualitative study emerges over the course of the study itself, rather than serving as a blueprint to guide research (Polit & Beck, 2004, p. 245).

In another crucial difference with quantitative studies, qualitative studies proceed in an iterative fashion with respect to the basic research tasks of “sampling, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation”: each step serves to inform the subsequent one, guiding it further toward the path of gradually-coalescing, emergent design (Polit & Beck, 2004, p. 57). Polit and Beck explained the value of the qualitative research technique known as “bricolage”: an admixture or synthesis of “a complex array of data, derived from a variety of sources and using a variety of methods” (p. 245).  Bricolage thus allows the researcher to make sense of a plethora of data derived from different sources by a variety of means.

What, then, of the ontology and epistemology of the qualitative study? Divergent paradigms afford respective assumptions about ontology and epistemology, each with their own foundational assumptions. As Holloway and Wheeler (2002) explained, the two primary paradigms in social research are the “positivist and the interpretivist paradigms” (p. 4). The positivist paradigm is derived from the methods of the natural sciences, and served as the template for “early social sciences such as psychology and later sociology” (p. 4). The positivist position has become the bauplan or blueprint for quantitative research, with its objective, scientific approach to ontology and epistemology: under this paradigm, reality is quantified by means of rigorous testing and the application of the scientific method. The principal assumption of the positivist paradigm is a realist ontology: scientific testing produces quantifiable results in accordance with universal scientific laws (p. 4).

Adherents of the interpretivist paradigm, on the other hand, “stressed that human beings differ from the material world and the distinction between humans and matter should be mirrored in the methods of investigation” (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002, p. 4). The interpretivist paradigm, and the descriptive research tradition it has produced, are rooted in “history, philosophy and anthropology” (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002, p. 5). Interpretivism is subjective rather than objective: interpretivists seek to understand the symbol-laden discourses and narratives with which their human subjects construct their perception of reality and imbue it with meaning (p. 5). The principal assumption of the interpretivist paradigm is the converse of that of the positivist paradigm: the human subject is important in terms of her/his experiences of her/his socially-constructed world and place within it (p. 5).The Weberian conceptual approach of Verstehen, which emphasizes “empathetic understanding” and “understanding something in its context”, in stark contrast to the positivist paradigm (p. 5).

The interpretivist paradigm is by far the most useful for the qualitative researcher. As McAllister and Rowe (2003) argued, the ideas that “reality is constructed and contextual” and that “accountable qualitative research involves justifying descriptions and interpretations” are important for nursing students undertaking qualitative research to understand (p. 298). To the broadly interpretivist paradigm, anthropology has contributed ethnography, which “provides a framework for studying the meanings, patterns, and experiences of a defined cultural group in a holistic fashion” (Loiselle, Profetto-McGrath, Polit, & Beck, 2010, p. 175). Ethnoscience, also known as cognitive anthropology, has a more specific focus: the shared semiotic discourses and narratives that shape and modulate the “cognitive world of a culture” (p. 175). Ecological psychology views the behavior of the human subject in terms of the ecological context of the sociocultural and sociopolitical networks of which the subject is a part (p. 175). Again, the assumptions are principally interpretivist: human subjects partake in, shape, and are shaped by their semiotically-constructed social worlds, constituted by inherent narratives of mutually-reinforcing signifiers and symbols. Finally, phenomenology, grounded in the writings of Husserl and Heidegger, asks “What is the essence of this phenomenon as experienced by these people at this point in time, and what does it mean?” (p. 178). Again, phenomenology is interpretivist rather than positivist: the phenomenologist’s focus is subjective phenomena, which are examined and analyzed “in the belief that key truths about reality are grounded in people’s lived experiences” (p. 178).

Inasmuch as qualitative research emphasizes engagement with participants in order to understand the subjective meanings of their lived experiences, the researcher must adopt a particular role. Patton (2002) explained that qualitative research is “naturalistic”: that is, “the research takes place in real-world settings and the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest” (p. 39). This is in sharp contrast to research conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, a contrast which Patton observed: the observations “take place in real-world settings” and the research subjects “are interviewed with open-ended questions… under conditions that are comfortable for and familiar to them” (p. 39). Research will be more naturalistic—which is, after all, the aim of qualitative research—if it is conducted in a conversational and open-ended manner, as with interviews rather than questionnaires (p. 40). McAllister and Rowe (2003) emphasized the importance of “an awareness of self and others,” as well as “what subjectivity means and how it can be evoked” (p. 299). These are crucial skills for the qualitative researcher to perfect: the researcher must be able to engage participants in a way that is not only comfortable for them, but also productive for the researcher’s investigation of the particular research question. In order to ensure the accuracy of research findings, the researcher must confirm them with the study participants whilst in the field, another important task: Polit and Beck (2004) recommended that the researcher share “preliminary interpretations” of the study data with the participants, in order to give them a chance to respond (p. 57). This will help to eliminate unconscious subjective bias on the part of the researcher (p. 57).

The involvement of the researcher in the study inevitably raises questions of ethics. Streubert and Carpenter (2010) delineated the obvious—but necessary and indispensable—ethical guidelines: the principle of beneficence, which mandates that the participants in the study must not come to harm, is the first and most important (p. 61). In a situation wherein the participant is evincing distress, for instance with regards to possible emotional trauma, the researcher should observe the principle of beneficence and terminate the interview—and, if appropriate, prescribe counseling (p. 61).  Holloway and Wheeler (2002) , following Robinson and Thorne (1988), delineated the four principal issues of research ethics as: “informed consent, influence, immersion, and intervention” (p. 55, orig. emph.). The fundamental difficulty with informed consent, however, is that in qualitative research “data collection and analysis occur simultaneously,” and even if consent is given or implied by research subjects “at one stage of the research, it cannot be assumed at another stage when the researcher’s objectives change…” (p. 55). As Streubert and Carpenter (2010) explained, informed consent and voluntary participant engagement with the study are foundational to the principle of autonomy (p. 61). Upholding confidentiality and anonymity is another important research mandate: this supports the precepts of both the beneficence principle and the justice principle (p. 61).

Researcher influence refers to the effect of the researcher on the actual data, the research findings: the researcher cannot avoid influencing the research (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002, p. 55). In order to ameliorate the interpretive difficulties posed by this challenge, the researcher must needs make their own biases clear in their report—what Holloway and Wheeler call “the researcher as the major data-gathering tool” (p. 55). And then there is the problem of immersion: in order to actually perform qualitative research, the researcher must immerse themselves in the data of their research context  (p. 55). This is the only way for the researcher to gain “familiarity with the setting”—and of course for the participants to become familiar with the researcher (p. 55). However, this process of immersion also lends itself to the germination of subjectivity in the researcher’s mind: here, the necessary rectification entails that the qualitative researcher “develop strategies to balance the subjective and objective elements inherent in immersion” (p. 56). This will allow the researcher to assay some measure of objectivity—and to recognize those aspects of subjectivity remaining in her/his mind. Finally, there is intervention: Holloway and Wheeler (2002) explained that intervention poses a challenge in the form of an intrinsic “tension between professional and researcher roles” (p. 56). Specifically, in some research situations the data gathered may pose “immediate implications” for clinical practice and nursing interventions—but intervening is at odds with the researcher’s need to conduct the study in a naturalistic, i.e. non-interventionist, fashion—and therein lies the dilemma (p. 56).

Traditionally, reflexivity has served a seminal function as precisely this kind of strategy. McCabe and Holmes (2009) investigated the use of reflexivity in qualitative research through a Foucauldian lens, arguing that the traditional conception and use of reflexivity as a means of eliminating or recognizing bias holds challenges for the qualitative researcher who is conducting research “with emancipator and transformative goals” (p. 1520). In Foucauldian terms, power “exists within relations, including those between individuals and groups” (p. 1522). The researcher as caring agent can enable the participant to comprehend these webs of discursive power—thereby providing them with the means of emancipation (p. 1523). McCabe and Holmes argued that “expanded reflexivity” can serve as a Foucauldian “technology of the self”: a process of realization that deconstructs hegemonic narratives and relationships of power, and in turn “enables a productive power that transforms the participant from the inside out” (p. 1523).

Qualitative research, then, is a truly powerful and, indeed, transformative technique for gathering and analyzing data. Qualitative research makes significant demands of researchers: they must devote considerable amounts of time and effort to investigating their research question by engaging with their research subjects. The qualitative researcher must become immersed in the situation or community under analysis, in order to ascertain the subjective meanings of the bounded semiotic narratives which construct the participants’ lived social spheres—and must do so ethically, with informed consent. The demands may be many, but qualitative research is an outstanding technique for studying attitudes, feelings, perceptions, and lived experiences.

References

Fain, J. A. (1998). Reading, understanding, and applying nursing research. Philadelphia, PA: F. Davis.

Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing (2^nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Loiselle, C. G., Profetto-McGrath, J., Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Canadian essentials of nursing research (3^rd ed.).  Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

McAllister, M., & Rowe, J. (2003, July). Blackbirds singing in the dead of night?: Advancing the craft of teaching qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(7), 296-303. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/

McCabe, J. L., & Holmes, D. (2009, January 22). Reflexivity, critical qualitative research and emancipation: A Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(7), 1518 Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04978.x

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods (7^th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2010). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.