context

Mitigating Researcher-as-instrument Effects

Unique attributes image

There are 10 unique attributes associated with qualitative research.  These were discussed briefly in an article posted in this blog back in 2013.  One of the most fundamental and far-reaching of these attributes is that the qualitative researcher is the “instrument” by which data are collected.  The data-gathering process in qualitative research is facilitated by interviewer or moderator guides, observation grids, and the like; however, these are only accessories to the principal data collection tool, i.e., the researcher or others on the research team.

As the key instrument in gathering qualitative data, the researcher bears a great deal of responsibility for the outcomes.  If for no other reason, this responsibility hinges on the fact that this one attribute plays a central role in the effects associated with three other Read Full Text

Pigeonholing Qualitative Data: Why Qualitative Responses Cannot Be Quantified

A recent webinar on the ins-and-outs of qualitative research stated that qualitative data could be quantified by simply counting the codes associated with some aspect of the data content, such as the number of times a particular brand name is mentioned or a specific sentiment is expressed towards a Pigeonholetopic of interest.  The presenter asserted that, by counting these codes, the researcher has in effect “converted” qualitative to quantitative data.

This way of thinking is not unlike those who contend that useful quantitative data can be calculated with qualitative findings by counting the number of “votes” for a particular concept or some aspect of the research subject matter.  Let’s say a moderator asks group participants to rate a new product idea on a modest four-point scale from “like very much” to “do not like at all.”  Or, an interviewer conducting qualitative in-depth interviews (IDIs) asks each of the 30 participants to rate their agreement with statements pertaining to the advantages of digital technology on a scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”  It is the responses to these types of questions that some researchers gather up as votes and report as quantitative evidence.

By asserting that codes and votes can be counted and hence transform a portion of qualitative findings Read Full Text

Lessons in Best Practices from Qualitative Research with Distinct Cultures

Janette Brocklesby recently wrote an article in QRCA Views magazine concerning the conduct of qualitative research with the Māori population of New Zealand. Specifically, she addresses the issue of whether “non- Māori researchers have the cultural competency, expertise and skills to undertake research with Māori.” Brocklesby korumakes the case in the affirmative, emphasizing that non- Māori qualitative researchers are “well equipped to undertake research with Māori and to convey the Māori perspective.”

In making her case, Brocklesby discusses many of the best practices mentioned repeatedly in Research Design Review. As for all qualitative research, a researcher studying Māori groups must place a high importance on:

Reflexivity – Continually questioning and contemplating the researcher’s role or impact on research outcomes is a critical step towards quality results. In March 2014, an article in RDR talked about using a reflexive journal to think about the assumptions, values, and beliefs Read Full Text