Women's Decision-Making And Factors Affecting Their Choice Of ...
Women's Decision-Making And Factors Affecting Their Choice Of ... Women's Decision-Making And Factors Affecting Their Choice Of ...
Hammersley 1992a, Hammersley 1992b; Morse 1998; Sandelowslci 1993; Silverman 1985). Sandelowsld (1993) suggests that participants may forget what they said and therefore are not in a position to verify the accuracy of researcher's accounts. They may also change their mind about what they gave in an interview afterwards. Another argument is that results of a study should be given to participants for their information, use and application, and not for verification (Morse 1998). Morse further argues that good qualitative research involves processes of synthesis, conceptualisation and abstraction. It involves extensive knowledge of the topic, the setting, and social science literature. The researcher uses this education to identify and create new knowledge. Participants, on the other hand, who are usually lay people, do not have these abilities. Additionally, research results are a synthesis of multiple participants' views which one participant may not understand. Morse (1998) considers verification by participants an extraordinary and unrealistic expectation. Furthermore, it is argued that participants cannot be relied upon to read the draft of the analysis with the same kind of critical spirit necessary for the task to be carried out successfully (Emerson 1988). Finally, Bloor (1983) suggests that member checks are limited to asking members to judge whether a researcher's account represents a legitimate elaboration and systematisation of the member's account. Another method suggested for improving the trustworthiness of a research investigation is triangulation (Hammersley 1992a; LeCompte and Goetz 1982; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Marshall and Rossman 1989; Sandelowski 1986). Triangulation refers to employing more than one method in data collection and analysis. Four types of triangulation have been identified, they are method, data, investigator, and theoretical (Campbell and Fiske 1959; Denzin 1970; Goodwin and Goodwin 1984b; Webb, Campbell, Schwartz et al 1981). 81
In method triangulation, different methods are used to address the same problem, in data triangulation, different data sources are used, in investigator, different investigators are used, while in theoretical triangulation different theoretical models are used. The aim of triangulation is to establish the convergent validity of findings from complementary approaches. It is argued that triangulation balances distorting effects of any single approach and permits data collected in one way to be used to check the accuracy of data collected in another (LeCompte and Preissle 1993). Some authors agree on the use of multiple methods in qualitative research, especially to extend the comprehensiveness of findings. Murphy et al (1998) argue that the use of multiple methods may encourage researchers to pay attention to the different perspectives that may be held, and the ways in which results are inevitably the product of the context in which they were produced. Additionally, it is thought that when data from two sources or methods produce dissimilar results, the researcher is prompted to consider how the differences came about, which enriches the analysis (Jick 1979). Similarly, it is argued that differences between two sets of data are just as important as the similarities (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995), and when the use of multiple methods uncovers discrepancies, they call for more investigation, which may lead to deeper understanding (Bryman 1988; Janesick 1994). Furthermore, multiple methods are thought to uncover some unique variance that may otherwise have been neglected by a single method (Oiler 1993). Although generally critical of triangulation, Silverman (1993) acknowledges the usefulness of multiple methods in overcoming the incompleteness of data drawn from a single source. On the other hand, some authors have warned against using triangulation as an end in itself, or looking at it as an inherent good (Knafl and Breitmayer 82
- Page 31 and 32: From the health practitioner's pers
- Page 33 and 34: 1979), is a second approach to unde
- Page 35 and 36: normative factor. The individual's
- Page 37 and 38: and then choose the place they cons
- Page 39 and 40: example, they worried that the valu
- Page 41 and 42: they can easily imagine or recall a
- Page 43 and 44: are not necessarily chosen because
- Page 45 and 46: make decisions that are not necessa
- Page 47 and 48: Chapter 3: Systematic review of fac
- Page 49 and 50: considered. Primary research design
- Page 51 and 52: If the question of the review is no
- Page 53 and 54: Cochrane Database of Systematic rev
- Page 55 and 56: Table 2: Search terms used Search t
- Page 57 and 58: Table 3: Journals that were hand se
- Page 59 and 60: solely on the basis of the study re
- Page 61 and 62: they were recruited, at what stage
- Page 63 and 64: ,,, ... .g eD .E 0 o 4,7; (.5 g .5
- Page 65 and 66: -o -cs •b a) ..o ,:" .., -0 ti-,
- Page 67 and 68: Quality of studies included in the
- Page 69 and 70: ole to play in their preferences fo
- Page 71 and 72: The next chapter discusses methodol
- Page 73 and 74: observable behaviour are used (Holl
- Page 75 and 76: known? What roles do values play in
- Page 77 and 78: male nursing home is used (Applegat
- Page 79 and 80: The procedure ensures a vigorous se
- Page 81: investigation have for the particip
- Page 85 and 86: the context being studied. They fur
- Page 87 and 88: access to all settings, and the dat
- Page 89 and 90: access participants' private accoun
- Page 91 and 92: There is an argument for analysing
- Page 93 and 94: analysis, asking additional questio
- Page 95 and 96: that while such an approach can nev
- Page 97 and 98: Chapter 5: Qualitative Study of Wom
- Page 99 and 100: potential participants, as well as
- Page 101 and 102: either. Three months passed, there
- Page 103 and 104: The interview was transcribed the s
- Page 105 and 106: elevant. The environment of the hom
- Page 107 and 108: wanted to explore. Consequently, th
- Page 109 and 110: Most women offered coffee or tea, a
- Page 111 and 112: All women who participated in the s
- Page 113 and 114: The process of analysis was iterati
- Page 115 and 116: h4,u husbovzi would sou thnt lie fe
- Page 117 and 118: transcripts and compared them with
- Page 119 and 120: ecause they previously had short un
- Page 121 and 122: Figure 2: Analysis mind map Hospita
- Page 123 and 124: quotation in the transcript, denote
- Page 125 and 126: itiust put me off of birth, fuLL st
- Page 127 and 128: Gaolape brought up a number of fact
- Page 129 and 130: that presentation of much of the da
- Page 131 and 132: Table 7: Marital status Place of de
In method triangulation, different methods are used to address the same<br />
problem, in data triangulation, different data sources are used, in investigator,<br />
different investigators are used, while in theoretical triangulation different<br />
theoretical models are used. The aim of triangulation is to establish the<br />
convergent validity of findings from complementary approaches. It is argued that<br />
triangulation balances distorting effects of any single approach and permits data<br />
collected in one way to be used to check the accuracy of data collected in another<br />
(LeCompte and Preissle 1993).<br />
Some authors agree on the use of multiple methods in qualitative research,<br />
especially to extend the comprehensiveness of findings. Murphy et al (1998)<br />
argue that the use of multiple methods may encourage researchers to pay attention<br />
to the different perspectives that may be held, and the ways in which results are<br />
inevitably the product of the context in which they were produced. Additionally,<br />
it is thought that when data from two sources or methods produce dissimilar<br />
results, the researcher is prompted to consider how the differences came about,<br />
which enriches the analysis (Jick 1979). Similarly, it is argued that differences<br />
between two sets of data are just as important as the similarities (Hammersley and<br />
Atkinson 1995), and when the use of multiple methods uncovers discrepancies,<br />
they call for more investigation, which may lead to deeper understanding (Bryman<br />
1988; Janesick 1994). Furthermore, multiple methods are thought to uncover<br />
some unique variance that may otherwise have been neglected by a single method<br />
(Oiler 1993). Although generally critical of triangulation, Silverman (1993)<br />
acknowledges the usefulness of multiple methods in overcoming the<br />
incompleteness of data drawn from a single source.<br />
On the other hand, some authors have warned against using triangulation<br />
as an end in itself, or looking at it as an inherent good (Knafl and Breitmayer<br />
82
Change language