Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad
Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad Qualitative Research in Practice : Stories From the Field - Blogs Unpad
Mixing methods incredibly arrogant and presumptive about our ability to make a context where it is safe to talk about these things in like five minutes, ten minutes, whatever it might be, and that maybe we need to think about people as complicated, that there is no perfect method, so there will be some for whom the questionnaire is a much easier thing to do, is a much easier form of communication in which to tell complicated difficult things, and there will be other people for whom spoken communication is easier. And then if we start talking about women and children with disabilities, we enter another whole realm again, so I think about mixed methods as enabling different kinds of telling. Catherine McDonald—Institutionalised organisations? Catherine McDonald used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods for her PhD study on the application of neoinstitutional organisational theory to non-profit organisations in Queensland. She has subsequently reported on methodological issues in relation to this study (McDonald, 1997, 1999). The research was conducted in two stages. Stage one involved a survey of 500 non-profit services, from which twelve services with either very high or very low organisational commitment were identified. Catherine then sought to test each of the propositions of neo-institutional theory in each of these services. She did this through semi-structured interviews with the CEO and with one worker directly involved with clients, and through analysis of public documents on the goals and financial status of each of the organisations. We were particularly interested in Catherine’s rationale for using mixed methods and the way she combined them in this study. Why mixed methods? Catherine: The reason that it went to a mixed-method type approach was [actually] two reasons. One was because I was looking at a whole field of organisations, so one approach could never deal with the 133
Qualitative research in practice complexity of the social phenomenon that I was examining . . . you have to come at it from lots of different angles to get a fix on it. The other reason was that the body of theory itself invoked different levels of analysis so you had to develop a methodology that worked at those different levels of analysis. So that led me to mixed methods almost inevitably. In mixedmethods work most people go qualitative, then quantitative and back to qualitative. I went quantitative to qualitative. What I wanted to do was get a feel for the whole series of organisations on a key variable and then pick out organisations where I could go and look at stuff in-depth. So where they varied on the one variable a lot, they were obviously key organisations for saying where these sorts of processes that I was talking about were either being enacted or not being enacted. This means you could get a real fix on the theory ...I started off with a key variable in all of this, organisational commitment, because nearly all of the literature around non-profits argues that these people are highly committed . . . Organisational commitment itself is a fairly complex variable and there are a lot of dimensions to it, but there has been a lot of work done about developing what the concept actually is, the component parts of the concept, and then developing instruments that pick up all the component parts ... So I thought, right, there is a whole body of theory saying what that variable actually consists of. There are excellent instruments developed ...It would be silly not to use that key variable to try and denote the sites where some qualitative work would make some sense. The survey Catherine: I had to spend a lot of time in the first place constructing a sample frame ...You can never find all the organisations and there’s no one list of them anywhere . . . So I constructed a sample frame from about three or four different sources ...[there were] 134
- Page 100 and 101: Observation Yvonne: Anne: Yvonne: A
- Page 102 and 103: Observation Anne: Another useful th
- Page 104 and 105: Observation couldn’t understand h
- Page 106 and 107: Observation interesting because I s
- Page 108 and 109: Observation of questions separate f
- Page 110 and 111: Tailoring data collection We focus
- Page 112 and 113: Tailoring data collection The exper
- Page 114 and 115: Tailoring data collection be achiev
- Page 116 and 117: Tailoring data collection Making us
- Page 118 and 119: Tailoring data collection children
- Page 120 and 121: Tailoring data collection collectio
- Page 122 and 123: Tailoring data collection • Settl
- Page 124 and 125: Tailoring data collection Caroline
- Page 126 and 127: Tailoring data collection Dorothy:
- Page 128 and 129: Tailoring data collection Dorothy:
- Page 130 and 131: Tailoring data collection Tim: real
- Page 132 and 133: Tailoring data collection supermark
- Page 134 and 135: Tailoring data collection Wendy: th
- Page 136 and 137: 6 Mixing methods ‘Mixed methods
- Page 138 and 139: Mixing methods the different compon
- Page 140 and 141: Mixing methods methods which allowe
- Page 142 and 143: Mixing methods obtained through one
- Page 144 and 145: Mixing methods in itself. Rather, t
- Page 146 and 147: Mixing methods and how they would e
- Page 148 and 149: Mixing methods violence; that they
- Page 152 and 153: Mixing methods about 1200 organisat
- Page 154 and 155: Mixing methods Yvonne: that overarc
- Page 156 and 157: Mixing methods Yvonne: Cheryl: Yvon
- Page 158 and 159: Mixing methods reducing the benefit
- Page 160 and 161: Analysing data possible about what
- Page 162 and 163: Analysing data sometimes referred t
- Page 164 and 165: Analysing data Team research makes
- Page 166 and 167: Analysing data crying—and I could
- Page 168 and 169: Analysing data Analysing the observ
- Page 170 and 171: Analysing data I’d said that’,
- Page 172 and 173: Analysing data straight to the inte
- Page 174 and 175: Analysing data They also highlight
- Page 176 and 177: Presenting and writing up be used.
- Page 178 and 179: Presenting and writing up participa
- Page 180 and 181: Presenting and writing up the princ
- Page 182 and 183: Presenting and writing up difficult
- Page 184 and 185: Presenting and writing up adopted c
- Page 186 and 187: Presenting and writing up Yvonne: L
- Page 188 and 189: Presenting and writing up of the th
- Page 190 and 191: Presenting and writing up Tim: stor
- Page 192 and 193: Presenting and writing up Anne felt
- Page 194 and 195: 9 Epilogue: From research to practi
- Page 196 and 197: Epilogue are presented to the way i
- Page 198 and 199: Epilogue • Diffusion (disseminati
<strong>Qualitative</strong> research <strong>in</strong> practice<br />
complexity of <strong>the</strong> social phenomenon that I was<br />
exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g . . . you have to come at it from lots of<br />
different angles to get a fix on it. The o<strong>the</strong>r reason was<br />
that <strong>the</strong> body of <strong>the</strong>ory itself <strong>in</strong>voked different levels of<br />
analysis so you had to develop a methodology that<br />
worked at those different levels of analysis. So that led<br />
me to mixed methods almost <strong>in</strong>evitably. In mixedmethods<br />
work most people go qualitative, <strong>the</strong>n<br />
quantitative and back to qualitative. I went quantitative<br />
to qualitative. What I wanted to do was get a feel<br />
for <strong>the</strong> whole series of organisations on a key variable<br />
and <strong>the</strong>n pick out organisations where I could go and<br />
look at stuff <strong>in</strong>-depth. So where <strong>the</strong>y varied on <strong>the</strong> one<br />
variable a lot, <strong>the</strong>y were obviously key organisations<br />
for say<strong>in</strong>g where <strong>the</strong>se sorts of processes that I was<br />
talk<strong>in</strong>g about were ei<strong>the</strong>r be<strong>in</strong>g enacted or not be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
enacted. This means you could get a real fix on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ory ...I started off with a key variable <strong>in</strong> all of this,<br />
organisational commitment, because nearly all of <strong>the</strong><br />
literature around non-profits argues that <strong>the</strong>se people<br />
are highly committed . . . Organisational commitment<br />
itself is a fairly complex variable and <strong>the</strong>re are a lot of<br />
dimensions to it, but <strong>the</strong>re has been a lot of work done<br />
about develop<strong>in</strong>g what <strong>the</strong> concept actually is, <strong>the</strong><br />
component parts of <strong>the</strong> concept, and <strong>the</strong>n develop<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>struments that pick up all <strong>the</strong> component parts ...<br />
So I thought, right, <strong>the</strong>re is a whole body of <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
say<strong>in</strong>g what that variable actually consists of. There<br />
are excellent <strong>in</strong>struments developed ...It would be<br />
silly not to use that key variable to try and denote<br />
<strong>the</strong> sites where some qualitative work would make<br />
some sense.<br />
The survey<br />
Ca<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>e: I had to spend a lot of time <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first place construct<strong>in</strong>g<br />
a sample frame ...You can never f<strong>in</strong>d all<br />
<strong>the</strong> organisations and <strong>the</strong>re’s no one list of <strong>the</strong>m<br />
anywhere . . . So I constructed a sample frame from<br />
about three or four different sources ...[<strong>the</strong>re were]<br />
134
Change language