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 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
- 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 150 and 151: Mixing methods incredibly arrogant
- Page 152 and 153: Mixing methods about 1200 organisat
- 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
- Page 200 and 201: Epilogue practical and simple langu
- Page 202 and 203: Epilogue violence, the things we em
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