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

blogs.unpad.ac.id
from blogs.unpad.ac.id More from this publisher
16.11.2014 Views

Mixing methods Yvonne: that overarching analytical framework that puts it all together, then you’ve just got a pastiche. There’s also something about your purpose, isn’t there, because you’re very clear that the purpose of the survey was to identify organisations for the next stage so you could argue in a sense that this was to get to the point where you could use the theory? Catherine: Yes, that’s right—to really test out whether it was a living and breathing theory. People often do it the other way around, like they do qualitative work so they can go and determine what the key concepts are and can then do quantitative work by using instruments that measure what they’re looking at. I had the theory first and I was going from the theory down into the field. A lot of people start in the field, find the theory—use the qualitative, find what the important constructs are and the central relationships between them, which then hopefully would lead them to a body of theory from which they can then construct their quantitative work. So it depends which way you’re going, how you do it. Yvonne: Without the quantitative stage, you would have had to do considerable prior qualitative work to try to identify the services inductively, before you could start to test the theory. The survey enabled you to use the construct of organisational commitment to find the services quite quickly, so you could then commence the qualitative research at a theory testing stage. Catherine: Yes, it’s a real shortcut. I just don’t know how I would have done it otherwise. I would have had to do an awful lot more than 24 interviews, which was not possible . . . And I’d never really know that I was sampling right and that’s the whole bedevilment when you’re doing theory testing. It’s a very different way of using qualitative work. One of the things that became clearer and clearer to me was that this was essentially a positivist model. I was using qualitative work within a positivist framework. 137

Qualitative research in practice Potential pitfalls in mixing methods Yvonne: What are the pitfalls with mixed methods? Catherine: That one bit won’t speak to the other. I think that’s really it—that they have no linkage. No, the other pitfall from a research point of view is that you’re jack of all trades and master of none and so that’s pretty scary . . . [You] can never be expert in all of them. Theoretically I suppose what you should do is gather around you experts in those various methods and direct them, but most people don’t have the opportunity for that. So if you’re going to use mixed methods I guess keep it as simple as possible, keep the analytical methods that you’re using as simple as possible otherwise you’re going to get out of your depth pretty quickly in the analysis. Cheryl Tilse—The long goodbye Cheryl’s use of observation (Chapter 4) was just one of the datacollection approaches she used in her study of visiting practices in nursing homes. She also conducted in-depth interviews and analysed documents. She is very clear that no one method would have enabled as full an understanding of the visiting experience as she achieved with the combination of data-collection approaches. She is talking here about what each of the methods brought to the study. Yvonne: Cheryl: What kinds of things did you pick up from having multiple data collection methods that you wouldn’t have picked up from one alone? I interviewed the spouses first so I came in with a perspective of the spouses and an understanding of what the purpose and meaning of visiting for them was. That was important in how it situated me. I got lots from the two methods that I wouldn’t have got from just watching. From just watching I couldn’t get who [the staff] saw as difficult and why they were seen as difficult and how the staff understood the purpose and meaning of visiting, of why families visited. But if 138

Mix<strong>in</strong>g methods<br />

Yvonne:<br />

that overarch<strong>in</strong>g analytical framework that puts it all<br />

toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>n you’ve just got a pastiche.<br />

There’s also someth<strong>in</strong>g about your purpose, isn’t <strong>the</strong>re,<br />

because you’re very clear that <strong>the</strong> purpose of <strong>the</strong><br />

survey was to identify organisations for <strong>the</strong> next stage<br />

so you could argue <strong>in</strong> a sense that this was to get to<br />

<strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t where you could use <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory?<br />

Ca<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>e: Yes, that’s right—to really test out whe<strong>the</strong>r it was a<br />

liv<strong>in</strong>g and breath<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory. People often do it <strong>the</strong><br />

o<strong>the</strong>r way around, like <strong>the</strong>y do qualitative work so<br />

<strong>the</strong>y can go and determ<strong>in</strong>e what <strong>the</strong> key concepts are<br />

and can <strong>the</strong>n do quantitative work by us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struments<br />

that measure what <strong>the</strong>y’re look<strong>in</strong>g at. I had <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong>ory first and I was go<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory down <strong>in</strong>to<br />

<strong>the</strong> field. A lot of people start <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> field, f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong>ory—use <strong>the</strong> qualitative, f<strong>in</strong>d what <strong>the</strong> important<br />

constructs are and <strong>the</strong> central relationships between<br />

<strong>the</strong>m, which <strong>the</strong>n hopefully would lead <strong>the</strong>m to a<br />

body of <strong>the</strong>ory from which <strong>the</strong>y can <strong>the</strong>n construct<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir quantitative work. So it depends which way<br />

you’re go<strong>in</strong>g, how you do it.<br />

Yvonne:<br />

Without <strong>the</strong> quantitative stage, you would have had to<br />

do considerable prior qualitative work to try to identify<br />

<strong>the</strong> services <strong>in</strong>ductively, before you could start to test<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory. The survey enabled you to use <strong>the</strong><br />

construct of organisational commitment to f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong><br />

services quite quickly, so you could <strong>the</strong>n commence<br />

<strong>the</strong> qualitative research at a <strong>the</strong>ory test<strong>in</strong>g stage.<br />

Ca<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>e: Yes, it’s a real shortcut. I just don’t know how I would<br />

have done it o<strong>the</strong>rwise. I would have had to do an<br />

awful lot more than 24 <strong>in</strong>terviews, which was not<br />

possible . . . And I’d never really know that I was<br />

sampl<strong>in</strong>g right and that’s <strong>the</strong> whole bedevilment when<br />

you’re do<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ory test<strong>in</strong>g. It’s a very different way of<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g qualitative work. One of <strong>the</strong> th<strong>in</strong>gs that became<br />

clearer and clearer to me was that this was essentially<br />

a positivist model. I was us<strong>in</strong>g qualitative work with<strong>in</strong><br />

a positivist framework.<br />

137

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!