archive-org.com » ORG » Q » QUALRES.ORG

Total: 125

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Stratified purposeful | Stratified Purposeful Sampling
    and stratify this purposeful sample by practice size small medium and large and practice setting urban suburban and rural Stratified purposeful sampling is different from stratified random sampling in that the sample sizes are likely to be too small for generalization Why use this method A stratified purposeful sampling approach can lend credibility to a research study When enough information is known to identify characteristics that may influence how the

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomeStra-3813.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Triangulation | Triangulation
    phenomenon Using multiple methods can help facilitate deeper understanding Denzin 1978 and Patton 1999 identify four types of triangulation Methods triangulation checking out the consistency of findings generated by different data collection methods It is common to have qualitative and quantitative data in a study These elucidate complementary aspects of the same phenomenon Often the points were these data diverge are of great interest to the qualiatitive researcher and provide the most insights Triangulation of sources examining the consistency of different data sources from within the same method For example at different points in time in public vs private settings comparing people with different view points Analyst Triangulation using multiple analyst to review findings or using multiple observers and analysts This can provide a check on selective perception and illuminate blind spots in an interpretive analysis The goal is not to seek consensus but to understand multiple ways of seeing the data Theory perspective triangulation using multiple theoretical perspectives to examine and interpret the data References Angen MJ 2000 Evaluating interpretive inquiry Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue Qualitative Health Research 10 3 pp 378 395 Creswell JW 1998 Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomeTria-3692.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Prolonged Engagement | Prolonged Engagement
    rapport and trust facilitates understanding and co construction of meaning between researcher and members of a setting The observer should be there long enough to become oriented to the sitution so that the context is appreciated and understood be able to detect and account for distortions that might be in the data e g researcher begins to blend in respondents feel comfortable disclosing informaton that no longer tows the party

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomeProl-3690.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Persistent Observation | Persistent Observation
    shapers and contextual factors that impinge upon the phenomenon being studied the purpose of persistent observation is to identify those characteristics and elements in the situation that are most relevant to the problem or issue being pursued and focusing on them in detail If prolonged engagement provides scope persistent observation provides depth Lincoln Guba 1985 p 304 Reference Lincoln YS Guba EG 1985 Naturalistic Inquiry Newbury Park CA Sage Publications

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomePers-3691.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Referential Adequacy | Referential Adequacy
    the remaining data and develops preliminary findings The researcher then returns to this archived data and analyzes it as a way to test the validity of his or her findings Reference Lincoln YS Guba EG 1985 Naturalistic Inquiry Newbury Park

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomeRefe-3695.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Peer Debriefing | Peer debriefing
    s mind Lincoln Guba 1985 p 308 Purpose of debriefing through analytical probing a debriefer can help uncover taken for granted biases perspectives and assumptions on the researcher s part through this process the researcher can become aware of his her posture toward data and analysis this is an opportunity to test and defend emergent hypotheses and see if they seem reasonable and plausible to a disinterested debriefer provide the

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomePeer-3693.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Thick Description | Thick Description
    first used by Ryle 1949 and later by Geertz 1973 who applied it in ethnography Thick descripton refers to the detailed account of field experiences in which the researcher makes explicit the patterns of cultural and social relationships and puts them in context Holloway 1997 This can be contrasted with thin description which is a superficial account References Geertz C 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures New York Basic Books Holloway

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomeThic-3697.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • RWJF - Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Member checking | Member Checks
    findings Provides repondents the opportunity to assess adequacy of data and preliminary results as well as to confirm particular aspects of the data The Drawbacks and Problems with Member checking Morse 1994 Angen 2000 and Sandelowski 1993 offer a comprehensive critical of the use of member checks for establishing the validity of qualitative research Member checking relies on the assumption that there is a fixed truth of reality that can be accounted for by a researcher and confirmed by a respondent From an interpretive perspective understanding is co created and there is no objective truth or reality to which the results of a study can be compared The process of member checking may lead to confusion rather than confirmation because participants may change their mind about an issue the interview itself may have an impact on their original assessment and new experiences since the time of contact may have intervened Respondents may disagree with researcher s interpretations Then the question of whose interpretation should stand becomes an issue Both researchers and members are stakeholders in the research process and have different stories to tell and agendas to promote This can result in conflicting ways of seeing interpretations Members struggle with abstract synthesis Members and researchers may have different views of what is a fair account Members strive to be perceived as good people researchers strive to be seen as good scholars These divergent goals may shape findings and result in different ways of seeing and reacting to data Members may tell stories during an interview that they later regret or see differently Members may deny such stories and want them removed from the data Members may not be in the best position to check the data They may forget what they said or the manner in which a story was

    Original URL path: http://www.qualres.org/HomeMemb-3696.html (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive