Posted: November 5th, 2015
Topic: Are We There Yet?
Positioning Qualitative Research Differently. By Wuest, Judith (2011) selected form Sage data bases.
Study: Consideration on how the position of qualitative research has shifted over the past 20years.
Purpose: The purpose of the study was social change or transformation with flexibility of research process.
Method:The researchers used Grounded theory as a guide to conduct their study. The author used Grounded feminist theory focusing on women instead and without involving abusive partners. (Wuest, 2011). They also conducted female participatory study related to reported ineffectiveness of their effort to help them. Participatory action study was aimed to determine the meaning and responses to women abuse in rural context (Wuest, 2011). They gathered data from makers and experiences from nursing I training from developing a more participatory feministic grounded theory. Also gathered data from single parents’ potential for health problem following separation from their abusive home (Wuest, 2011). The theory opens up explanation as to what happens and how alternatives are opened up and action about how things will be. They envisaged that change could take place as a result of the research process related to the plan to sell their findings starting from family to policy makers and to health care service providers. The dialogue will affect the interplay on social construction in health promotion for this population (Wuest, 2011).
Key findings: They researchers found out that the evolution of the qualitative research programs suggested the need for further research approach to be used in paradigm instead of the investigator’s approach. They reported ineffectiveness of their effort to help them using only qualitative research study (Wuest, 2011).
Evaluation of the design appropriateness/ethical analysis
The ethical issue in the study was addressed related answering the question of legitimacy of researchers to change their paradigm perspective related to their research questions which they acknowledged that they need to include in their research programs. They then applied the paradox that being specific with qualitative data does not benefit the study so they approached it by developing instruments which will allow them to use a mixed method and theory based interventions to test the theory.
Analysis of the difference if quantitative approach was used
Qualitative findings invariably raise further research questions which may detect the approach for the next step. The author noted that using qualitative study alone will alone render the study useless for the item construction (Wuest, 2011). If quantitative approach is used, it will provide an evidence through testing grounded theory for women evidence of scope and severity of effect of abuse in women was able to rectify using quantitative approach. Using longitudinal study design which includes pre and post-test measures in addition to qualitative process evaluation. If quantitative method were used, the researchers will use their knowledge claim to predict the outcome through inquiry and how the study will be learned. The items should be decided on by the researchers in the beginning. The number of data collected count for evidence and the significant amount is determined before the research.
Response to Jennifer
Summary of Article
After review the course readings I found an interesting article by van Heugten (2012) titled Resilience as an Underexplored Outcome of Workplace Bullying. The qualitative research study involved seventeen social workers in New Zealand that had been subjected to workplace bullying and suffered physical and psychological effects (van Heugten, 2012). In the beginning of the article, van Heugten (2012) highlights bullying, the negative impacts it can have on a workforce by how it impacts the victim. Resilience as an outcome, has not been studied much in regards to bullying, but has been studied in victims of trauma, abuse, and poverty (van Heugten, 2012). “I identified a qualitative, semi structured-interview-based approach as being the most appropriate method of investigation, because this would enable me to explore the form and impacts of the phenomenon in depth” (van Heugten, 2012, p. 293). Approval from the University of Canterbury’s Human Ethics Committee along with a promise of anonymity for participants addressed ethical concerns for the research study. After interviewing the participants, van Heugten (2012) utilized a grounded theory approach to analyze the data. Polit and Beck (2012) state that grounded theory tries to account for actions from the perspective of those involved. “The goal of grounded theory is to discover this main concern and the basic social process that explains how people continually resolve it” (Polit & Beck, 2012, p. 498). Once saturation was achieved, no further interviews occurred (van Heugten, 2012). Data saturation is the point at which no new information is obtained or data is redundant (Laureate Edu, Inc, 2012). Resilience was an obvious theme from the data according to van Heugten (2012), but had been overlooked in the literature as an outcome of bullying. “I found that resilience-enhancing factors identified by the participants clustered readily under themes of control and support, which are also identified as key stress- modulating factors in the demand-control-support theory of workplace stress” (van Heugten, 2012, p. 299).
Appropriateness of Design
I agree with the design of the study. The discipline stems from sociology and the area of inquiry is the “manner by which people make sense of social interactions” (Polit & Beck, 2012, p. 490). Interviewing the subjects achieved quality data and once saturation was achieved, the author was able analyze the data. The taped interviews were analyzed and she gave plenty of high quality examples in the article.
Difference in Quantitative Design
The data for this study was obtained by open-ended interviews. The participants were given the freedom to answer in any way they wanted. Resilience was an emerged theme from the data. For a quantitative analysis, the author could measure bullying effects using a number scale similar to the pain scale in nursing. The bullying effects could be analyzed with the physical impacts of bullying such as GI discomfort, missed days of work, headaches, etc. The resilience may not be able to be incorporated into this form of quantitative study, thus showing the importance of qualitative research.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A GOOD DISCOUNT 🙂
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.