Mixing methods and designs

PART 4 Qualitative Research in Practice Mixing methods and designs

Collaboration • In theory, collaboration increases the ‘efficiency’ of a research effort, through building information and dissemination networks • This can also help spread the skills and infrastructure needed to develop local research capacity, and raise wider awareness of and skills in qualitative methodologies.

‘Mixed Method’ • Mixing methods may involve: • Doing research in teams that include those from possibly very different cultures of research • Collaborating with partners who have very different expectations of the research process

Rationales for mixing methods • Adding breadth • Obtaining different types of data to address different elements of a topic, using various methods • Adding depth or analytical rigour • Explicit comparisons can deepen our understanding of a topic • Validation • Using quantitative techniques to strengthen the credibility of findings, as researchers can check on the findings from another

Triangulation • Triangulation as a means of validation which can bring a topic more sharply into focus • There are various triangulation strategies, such as: • Triangulation of methods • Data triangulation: utilizing as many diverse sources of data as possible • Investigator triangulation: using different observers • Theoretical triangulation

Limits of Data Triangulation • It is not always clear what should be done with different accounts, which could be influenced by social contexts or differing cultures • Standardized design in epidemiology and qualitative research cannot be incorporated into revised schedules or more sophisticated measures.

Mixing epidemiology and qualitative research A mixed method approach to evaluating the intervention would entail using epidemiological methods to measure outcomes and qualitative methods to explore the process and users’ views of the intervention.

Mixing epidemiology and qualitative research • To get the most from qualitative data requires developing plans for further sampling, data generation and analysis plans as hypotheses emerge from on-going analysis • It is not often logically possible to integrate qualitative designs with epidemiological design

Transferability • Over-reliance on designs based on experiments to evaluate large-scale policy interventions may have limited transferability • This is due to the dependence on the setting for which the evaluation is done

Critique of qualitative research • It is more challenging if the qualitative research is expected to contribute to a set of predetermined questions, and to utilize a set of existing categories

Developing trans-disciplinary research • Aim of a trans-disciplinary approach: integrate the different theoretical and methodological insights from each discipline throughout the project, rather than at the point of combining the findings

Natural Collaborations • The idea that there are natural collaborations tend to be challenged by the fact that there are differences in research practice, epistemology and style • Researchers might find the need to ‘defend’ their approaches • This can, of course, work should there be a considerable amount of planning

Limitations of Natural Collaborations • Five underlying assumptions in epidemiology that are at odds with anthropological practice: 1. It is possible to isolate cultural concepts from their context. 2. Culture can be reified as ‘value’, ‘attitudes’ and ‘beliefs’ and these can be attached to particular social groups. 3. Culture is a ‘risk factor’, even if a protective one. 4. Culture is an attribute of ‘others’; defined in terms of ethnicity, or social class. 5. The beliefs of these ‘others’ tend to be unreasonable, irrational and in need of explanation.

‘Pure’ and Applied Research • ‘Pure’ research is judged to be conducted at almost the sole discretion of the researcher in question. • Applied research may well use the same methods as pure research, but will be subject to the pressures and demands of a funding body (e.g. The NHS)

The differences between Pure and Applied • Sometimes the two have very few differences. • However, sometimes the research body will place time constraints on the research. • This happens in lots of context, but one that is most common is in disaster zones, where needs must be assessed very quickly.

Sacrificing Depth for Speed • The need to produce qualitative research quickly may well result in research questions that are too broad or too specific. • Choices can vary depending on local situational constraints as well as cultural models

Contingent nature of qualitative findings • Qualitative research is by its nature flexible and fluid • Creativity and imagination can sometimes be hindered when tackling a research with strict protocol • ‘Clear’ findings may also not fit neatly with the needs of other parts of the project • This tension can be relieved by accessing expectations through a collaborative process

Participatory research • Some researchers argue that participatory approaches can lower the risk of thin findings from rapid methods. • This involves two essential components: • Establishing good relationships between the ‘outsiders’ and the community at the start of the project • asking open questions that genuinely seek to understand perspectives of participants

Participatory research • However, this is not suitable if the primary aim of the findings is to answer a research question or provide knowledge that will be credible and convincing for policy-makers • Sometimes using a clinical, traditional epidemiological design yields better results than a subjective survey

International Collaborations • Institutions may have a formal collaborative agreement, but this only becomes a partnership in practice if individuals within the research team can develop a collaborative working relationship • Collaborative partnerships could be undermined by individual power differences between members or varying costs of research

Multidisciplinary work • Time and effort is needed to develop partnership, particularly in large-scale interventions • Nonetheless the result of a fruitful collaboration can be satisfying, and could lead to enhanced opportunities to contribute at a more theoretical level • Working with a range of stakeholders can also give you an insight that is not attainable when researching alone

KEY POINTS • While increasingly used in applied health research, there are often challenges in using qualitative approaches. • Fruitful collaborative relationships need a considerable investment of time and commitment to establish expectations at the outset over such issues as: • the relationships between the different methods used; • expected outputs; and • what to do with findings with conflicting implications. • National, disciplinary and professional differences are rarely neutral, and qualitative researchers may have to account for ‘differences’ more often than those from other backgrounds.

Mixing methods and designs