Challenges & Opportunities in Automating DBMS: A Qualitative Study

When attending last year’s (2011) International Health Economics Association (iHEA) conference in Toronto, we were struck by the notion that almost all papers we listened to used a very similar quantitativemethodology, whereas qualitative methods barely seemed to play a role. This is unfortunate: (Health) economists could effectively integrate combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods into their research toolkit, without having to give up the formal modeling approach they are accustomed to. The population and institutions studied will rarely be identical with the population for which policy recommendations are derived, so that, to the extent that the two differ, the recommendations may only partially hold. However, acquiring knowledge about the compatibility of populations and institutions is a complex task, one that may require the type of data generated by qualitative research.

Who is sensitising whom? A participatory interview guide development as an awareness tool within a health care research project

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

Getting under the skin: qualitative methods in dermatology research.

This paper compares the research method of phenomenological psychology to other qualitative research methods such as ethnography, participant observation, grounded theory, dramaturgical interviewing and content analysis. An attempt is made to identify similarities and differences. As a prelude, the major metatheories with which they are associated (phenomenology and symbolic interactionism) and the related differences between natural science and human science are discussed.Interest in qualitative research methodology appears to have gathered momentum over the last decade (e.g., Rist, 1980). One of the recurrent themes in the discussion of qualitative methods has been the question of whether quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible. Opinion has been divided. Gibbs (1979) made a plea for complementarity of subjectivist and objectivist methods in psychology. Mahrer (1988) has advocated discovery oriented research in the field of psychotherapy, while Sperry (1988) has suggested an integration of positivistic and phenomenological thought to form a more naturalistic approach to the study of brain and consciousness.The split between those who support and those who do not support complementarity of quantitative and qualitative methodology has also occurred in the field of educational research. For example, Howe (1985, 1988) and Firestone (1987) have argued for compatibility, while Smith (1983) and Smith and Heshusius (1986) have argued for incompatibility.The early eighties marked the growth of an interest in qualitative methodology which has paralleled the growing disenchantment with traditional logical - empirical research methods. The hegemony of natural science type research methods has been increasingly challenged by descriptive and hermeneutically oriented methods (e.g., Giorgi, 1986; Packer, 1985; Palmer, 1969; Polkinghorne, 1983; Rommetveit, 1987). Contextualism (Rosnow & Georgoudi, 1986), social constructionism (Gergen, 1985) and deconstructionism (Derrida, 1977) have also challenged the objectivity of traditional natural science methodology by emphasizing the socially derived foundationalisms upon which methods are based.There seems little doubt that qualitative methodology has come out of the closet in the field of the human sciences. Although quantitative methodological hegemony continues, the degree of coexistence and complementaritybetween quantitative and qualitative research methods seems to be increasing. Nonetheless, there are those who, while seeing symptoms of the inadequacy of standard quantitative methodological practice, see possible cures and solutions in the same metatheoretical terms (e.g., Aiken, West, Sechrest & Reno, 1990). Sarbin (1976) has noted the difficulty that psychologists trained in logical - empirical traditions have in breaking their reliance on habitual methods.The Transition from Quantitative to Qualitative MethodologyThose researchers who are willing to explore qualitative methods face several difficulties. Usually they have been trained in the quantitative tradition and find the transition to qualitative research methods requires a major shift in world - view. The metatheories underlying such methods often differ from the logical - empirical base of natural science (Jacob, 1987). As will be seen later, some aspects of the qualitative methods associated with symbolic interactionism follow normative natural science practice (e.g., the Iowa school of ethnography) while other qualitative methods use a mixture of natural and human science approaches to research (e.g., the Chicago School of ethnography). Qualitative research methods such as phenomenology and the phenomenological aspects of ethnography, participant observation and grounded theory are based on metatheories that are associated with a human science approach to psychology (see Giorgi, 1970). The emphasis is upon discovery, description and meaning rather than the traditional natural science criteria of prediction, control and measurement. …

In this paper, I discuss and critically assess how the relationship between philosophy of science and qualitative methods is presented and discussed in research on qualitative research methods education (QRME) and qualitative methods textbooks. I argue that both typically convey the idea that philosophy of science guides or influences the use and choice of qualitative methods but are often unclear about how this influence works. I propose two conceptualizations of the relationship between philosophy of science and qualitative methods: philosophical assumptions can either explicate or explain qualitative methods. I argue that both approaches have pedagogical rewards, but that whereas the explanation approach is explicitly or implicitly used in many examples of research on QRME and textbooks, the explication approach has not had wide application. I conclude by arguing that the lack of clarity and the absence of discussion about explication are potential problems for qualitative research methods education.

BackgroundThere have been over 430 publications using the RE-AIM model for planning and evaluation of health programs and policies, as well as numerous applications of the model in grant proposals and national programs. Full use of the model includes use of qualitative methods to understand why and how results were obtained on different RE-AIM dimensions, however, recent reviews have revealed that qualitative methods have been used infrequently. Having quantitative and qualitative methods and results iteratively inform each other should enhance understanding and lessons learned.MethodsBecause there have been few published examples of qualitative approaches and methods using RE-AIM for planning or assessment and no guidance on how qualitative approaches can inform these processes, we provide guidance on qualitative methods to address the RE-AIM model and its various dimensions. The intended audience is researchers interested in applying RE-AIM or similar implementation models, but the methods discussed should also be relevant to those in community or clinical settings.ResultsWe present directions for, examples of, and guidance on how qualitative methods can be used to address each of the five RE-AIM dimensions. Formative qualitative methods can be helpful in planning interventions and designing for dissemination. Summative qualitative methods are useful when used in an iterative, mixed methods approach for understanding how and why different patterns of results occur.ConclusionsIn summary, qualitative and mixed methods approaches to RE-AIM help understand complex situations and results, why and how outcomes were obtained, and contextual factors not easily assessed using quantitative measures.

Qualitative studies are gaining their credibility after a period of being misinterpreted as "not being quantitative." Qualitative method is a broad umbrella term for research methodologies that describe and explain individuals' experiences, behaviors, interactions, and social contexts. In-depth interview, focus groups, and participant observation are among the qualitative methods of inquiry commonly used in psychiatry. Researchers measure the frequency of occurring events using quantitative methods; however, qualitative methods provide a broader understanding and a more thorough reasoning behind the event. Hence, it is considered to be of special importance in psychiatry. Besides hypothesis generation in earlier phases of the research, qualitative methods can be employed in questionnaire design, diagnostic criteria establishment, feasibility studies, as well as studies of attitude and beliefs. Animal models are another area that qualitative methods can be employed, especially when naturalistic observation of animal behavior is important. However, since qualitative results can be researcher's own view, they need to be statistically confirmed, quantitative methods. The tendency to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods as complementary methods has emerged over recent years. By applying both methods of research, scientists can take advantage of interpretative characteristics of qualitative methods as well as experimental dimensions of quantitative methods.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative The literature on methodology distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative research methods. The term ‘qualitative’ does not refer to the quality of methods. Qualitative methods are those that are oriented towards the discovery of qualities of things – that is, the properties of objects, phenomena, situations, people, meanings and events. In contrast, quantitative methods are oriented towards the number or amount of these qualities. This chapter discusses a number of qualitative research methods that can be used in FPS projects. For quantitative research methods, we refer the reader to textbooks on social science methodology, such as those by Cooper and Schindler (2014) and Hair et al. (2005). Imagine marketing managers who would like to know the opinions of potential customers about a television commercial. They could ask some respondents to talk freely about their feelings with regard to the commercial, their associations, what they like about it and what they do not, and so on. Such a study would be qualitative in nature, since it aims to uncover the characteristics of people, in this case their attitude towards the commercial. The same marketing manager could also use a standardized questionnaire and ask respondents to express the degree to which they understand and like the commercial on a fivepoint scale. Such a study would be quantitative in nature, since it measures the value of a particular property in numbers. Qualitative research methods are particularly appropriate for studying people, groups, organizations and societies – for example, if you want to learn how people interpret their own situation, what their goals in life and work are and what strategies they employ to reach those goals. Such understanding is needed in most business problem-solving projects. Because there can be large and multifaceted differences between people and situations, it is often not effective to employ (only) a standardized measuring instrument. Qualitative research methods are relevant within more fields than just the social sciences. The natural and technical sciences use qualitative methods as well. Hendrik Casimir, a respected physicist and long-time director of Philips Laboratories, has stated: For although it is certainly true that quantitative measurements are of great importance, it is a grave error to suppose that the whole of experimental physics can be brought under this heading.

The main objective of this campbell systematic review was to provide a systematic review of the evidence on the effects of microcredit on women's control over household spending in developing countries. More specifically, we aimed to answer two related research questions: 1) what does the impact evaluative evidence say about the causal relationship between microcredit and specific dimensions of women's empowerment (women's control over household spending); and 2) what are the mechanisms which mediate this relationship. We prioritise depth of analysis over breadth, thus the scope of this review is narrower than previous systematic reviews on microfinance (stewart et al., 2010; duvendack et al. 2011; stewart et al., 2012). We focused on specific aspects of women's empowerment which allowed us to combine statistical meta-analysis and realist (context-mechanism-outcome) synthesis. From the different searches we identified an initial number of 310 papers that were selected for full text examination. Eventually, 29 papers were retained for further analysis, corresponding to 25 unique studies. In line with three recent other reviews on microfinance (stewart et al., 2010; duvendack et al., 2011; stewart et al. 2012) we found that the microcredit evidence base is extensive, yet most studies are weak methodologically. From those studies deemed comparable and of minimum acceptable quality, we concluded that overall there is no evidence for an effect of microcredit on women's control over household spending.

Qualitative methods are used in research that is designed to provide an in-depth description of a specific programme, practice, or setting. Three of the possible reasons for choosing qualitative methods are explored in this article: (a) the researcher's view of the world, (b) the nature of the research questions, and (c) practical reasons associated with the nature of qualitative methods. Different types of qualitative research methods are practiced in educational and psychological research out of which, the paper showcases seven strategies Ethnographic research, Case study, Phenomenological research, Grounded theory, Participative inquiry, Clinical research and Focus groups. Qualitative evaluation methods are an essential part of the range of tools that evaluators call upon in their practice. Since the 1970s, when qualitative evaluation methodswerefirstintroducedas alternativetotheexperimental/quasi-experimental paradigms, the philosophical underpinnings and methodological requirements for sound qualitative evaluation have transformed the evaluation profession. Debates continue about the relative merits of positivistic and constructivist approaches to evaluation, but many evaluators have come to the view that pragmatically, it is desirable to mix qualitative and quantitative methods. More specifically the present paper examines the need for understanding and using qualitative methods in performance measurement.

Chapter 46 - Qualitative methods and mixed methods

Qualitative and mixed methods play a prominent role in mental health services research. However, the standards for their use are not always evident, especially for those not trained in such methods. This article reviews the rationale and common approaches to using qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and implementation research based on a review of the articles included in this special series along with representative examples from the literature. Qualitative methods are used to provide a “thick description” or depth of understanding to complement breadth of understanding afforded by quantitative methods, elicit the perspective of those being studied, explore issues that have not been well studied, develop conceptual theories or test hypotheses, or evaluate the process of a phenomenon or intervention. Qualitative methods adhere to many of the same principles of scientific rigor as quantitative methods but often differ with respect to study design, data collection, and data analysis strategies. For instance, participants for qualitative studies are usually sampled purposefully rather than at random and the design usually reflects an iterative process alternating between data collection and analysis. The most common techniques for data collection are individual semistructured interviews, focus groups, document reviews, and participant observation. Strategies for analysis are usually inductive, based on principles of grounded theory or phenomenology. Qualitative methods are also used in combination with quantitative methods in mixed-method designs for convergence, complementarity, expansion, development, and sampling. Rigorously applied qualitative methods offer great potential in contributing to the scientific foundation of mental health services research.

<div class="WordSection1"><p>I am honored for being an alumnus of KEMC, and am delighted to write this editorial for the Annals. I have, ever since done my research and taught qualitative methods, felt that clinical methods are quite akin to qualitative research. Then, why only few clinical researchers use qualitative methods? A witness to this assumption is the research published in the Annals. In this treatise, I try to identify some parallels between the two types of methods and argue for the clinicians to invest in learning qualitative research methods to practice clinical methods well.</p><p> Qualitative research is to identify and interpret issues from the perspective of participants, their experience of: illness or disability, using health service, and to appreciate the meanings they give to the behaviour, events or objects in the context of their social and cultural norms. In this type of research, the emphasis is on exploring the associations and understanding the phenomenon in its holism; and not, like in quantitative research, from an outsider’s perspective and for certain specific aspects.<sup>1</sup> It requires participants with specific characteristics, selected purposely that can best inform the research topic. More participants, identified inductively during data collection, are added to develop full and multiple perspectives about the cases.<sup>2</sup></p><p> No preset data collection tool is used, instead qualitative researcher guided by a research question acts as an instrument, since the line of enquiry he changes during data collection as new understanding is gained and/or the situation changes.<sup>3</sup> The data for research is derived from the observation, interviews or verbal interactions, focus group discussions, document reviews, life histories etc. and the researcher asks why, how and under what circumstances things occur; and not just what, where and when. It is recorded in words or pictures and log book is used to record notes arising from interviews, observations, extracts from documents etc.</p><p> In health care settings patients are the subjects for clinical methods. The clinician, even prior to any verbal communication, observes the patient, e.g. for his gait and appearance. If in a bed or examination couch, his posture could give some clue to the illness. Inspection, a clinical method, is like systematic observation, which is qualitative method, should be holistic. In my third year during bedside teaching, Professor (late) Rashid Ahmed Qureshi said, <em>“patient has come to you as a whole and not his stomach in a tray”</em>, when a student straight went to examine abdomen of a patient with acute abdomen. History taking, another clinical method, is like conducting semi structured in depth interview – a qualitative research method. In both disciplines, we are told, <em>“not to ask leading, but follow up and probing questions”; </em>and Professor (late) Alamgir Khan, while teaching clinical methods, would add, <em>“if a good history is taken, you will establish diagnosis in over 65% of cases”. </em>Likewise, as part of history taking, documents related to patient’s illness history and treatment are reviewed similar to document review in qualitative research.</p><p> The two approaches however differ in how the data is analysed. In clinical practice, diagnosis is established based on the pathophysiological knowledge or patient’s clinical condition is discussed in clinicopathological conference.<sup>4</sup> On the other hand, qualitative research employs meaning based data analysis, whereby the qualitative data is transformed into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation of people and situation that is investigated.<sup>5,6</sup></p><p> In conclusion, the history, the observation and the review of document related to patient are since obtainned using qualitative methods, the clinician trained in these methods could not only conduct these methods well but also interpret the data to identify and detect obstacles to the change in clinical condition and the reasons why improvement does or does not occur.<sup>7</sup> Finally, while it is heartening that research forums are organised in the institutions affiliated with KEMU, in order the research is richer, the researchers’ skills in qualitative research methods should be built.</p></div>

Qualitative research: Thoughts on how to do it; how to judge it; when to use it