H is for human and how (not) to evaluate qualitative research in HCI

When trying to understand people's perspectives, qualitative researchers in HCI often use methods which assume participants can easily communicate verbally. There are few dedicated resources in HCI which provide an overview of qualitative methods to effectively gather the perspectives of people who cannot easily communicate verbally; specifically, people who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). As a result, AAC users might be excluded from studies using methods such as interviews or focus groups, even if they fit the researcher's target population. To address this problem, I review literature from both HCI and therapeutic AAC research fields to discuss methods used with AAC users. In addition, I present relevant case examples from my own qualitative research and propose a framework to guide HCI researchers on choosing appropriate methods when involving AAC users as central research participants. I also identify design opportunities for HCI researchers to innovate on the tools and methods used for qualitative research with AAC users. This paper provides an easily accessible overview of qualitative methods HCI researchers can use with AAC users as participants.

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. …

Qualitative Research in CKD: How to Appraise and Interpret the Evidence

Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

Guest editorial: What's common with qualitative nursing research these days?

Making sense of qualitative research: a new series

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. …

Purpose: Qualitative research has had a significant impact within rehabilitation science over time. During the past 20 years the number of qualitative studies published per year in Disability and Rehabilitation has markedly increased (from 1 to 54). In addition, during this period there have been significant changes in how qualitative research is conceptualized, conducted, and utilized to advance the field of rehabilitation. The purpose of this article is to reflect upon the progress of qualitative research within rehabilitation to date, to explicate current opportunities and challenges, and to suggest future directions to continue to strengthen the contribution of qualitative research in this field.Methods: Relevant literature searches were conducted in electronic data bases and reference lists. Pertinent literature was examined to identify current opportunities and challenges for qualitative research use in rehabilitation and to identify future directions.Results: Six key areas of opportunity and challenge were identified: (a) paradigm shifts, (b) advancements in methodology, (c) emerging technology, (d) advances in quality evaluation, (e) increasing popularity of mixed methods approaches, and (f) evolving approaches to knowledge translation. Two important future directions for rehabilitation are posited: (1) advanced training in qualitative methods and (2) engaging qualitative communities of research.Conclusion: Qualitative research is well established in rehabilitation and has an important place in the continued growth of this field. Ongoing development of qualitative researchers and methods are essential.Implications for RehabilitationQualitative research has the potential to improve rehabilitation practice by addressing some of the most pervasive concerns in the field such as practitioner–client interaction, the subjective and lived experience of disability, and clinical reasoning and decision making. This will serve to better inform those providing rehabilitation services thereby benefiting patients that are utilizing these services.Changes over time in how qualitative research is conceptualized, conducted, and utilized to advance rehabilitation science have resulted in a number of unique opportunities and challenges in using qualitative research that must be considered within this field.Advances in methodology and increased expectations for evaluation must be considered to ensure quality and credibility of qualitative rehabilitation research within rehabilitation. Improved quality and credibility may increase likelihood of research dissemination and use by clinicians intervening within the rehabilitation process in order to improve clinical practice.In order to maximize opportunities and mitigate challenges there are two principal future directions for rehabilitation scientists to consider: (1) advancing training in qualitative methods to adequately prepare future rehabilitation scientists and (2) engaging qualitative communities of research.

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

RESEARCHER AS AN INSTRUMENT IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The value that qualitative research brings to the occupational therapy body of evidence is widely accepted. Including evidence relating to individuals’ lived experiences through qualitative studies parallels occupational therapy's practice focus and theoretical underpinnings of the person in context. Engaging with consumers of occupational therapy services, for example, ensures that our practices, clinical and academic, remain current and reflective of the experience of people we work with. Qualitative research, where participants provided rich and in-depth description of their personal experience, is thus akin to client centred practice which is our modus operandi (World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2016). Qualitative research can be considered a natural extension of occupational therapy practice experience and expertise. After all, occupational therapists who are guided by a person-centred approach, will inevitably explore and consider their client's unique values and experiences in order to understand the context and meanings underlying occupational participation. We are comfortable interacting with clients and, consequently, occupational therapists should have prerequisite skills necessary for meaningful data collection with research participants using qualitative approaches. There is, however, a difference as the primary purpose of interaction is different – one aims to assist the other to enquire. Different techniques are used in these interactions reflecting the different methodological traditions from which they emerge. Clinicians know that ‘one size does not fit all’ in therapy. We thus interpret findings of reliable, standardised and valid assessments in the context of unique occupational performance needs, goals, roles and environments of the client, in order to collaboratively develop and intervention plan with our client. So it is with qualitative research data and methodology. The information collected will only ‘make sense’ if the assessment/enquiry methods used are rigorous, take account of the unique context and experiences of people involved, and ‘make sense’ from a range of perspectives. How do we know if qualitative research methodologies are rigorous? Can something that is so unique even incorporate attributes comparable across study questions and contexts? Just as therapy uses guidelines and methodological research to enhance the consistency and quality of practice processes, what tools can qualitative researchers in occupational therapy use to develop and implement robust research questions and procedures? Do we apply the same level of precision used to generate qualitative evidence in practice to the data collection, analysis and interpretation that we do in qualitative research? Is there a risk that qualitative findings from research is less rigorous than what we would use in practice? Are we taking the appropriate measures to ensure qualitative research produce findings that will have the potential to advance occupational therapy practice, research, and education? When it comes to the ‘quality’ of qualitative research, evidence suggests that ‘sample size’ is both a matter of contention and a meaningful guide to issues that need consideration. In the first instance, while sample size has been identified as a factor in study design, and it can be difficult to determine with precision, the size of the sample should be guided by ‘data saturation’ rather than sampling of people per se (Creswell, 2013). At the same time, the concept of data saturation has been challenged as a means to determine the quality of qualitative studies (O'Reiley & Parker, 2013). Other authors have proposed sample size can be determined on the number of participants rather than ‘data’, depending on the qualitative methodologies. For example, phenomenological studies may use between five and 20 participants (Creswell, 2013; Green & Thorogood, 2014) while three to 15 participants is acceptable in studies using interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). Still further, some qualitative researchers avoid suggestion of any particular approach, instead providing resources to researchers to help align their study design, procedures and sample size as best as possible with the question they are seeking to answer (for example, the Rosalind Franklin-Qualitative Research Appraisal Instrument and the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research.) These resources have been developed precisely to help qualitative researchers design, conduct, and report comprehensive research that is credible, dependable and transferable to other contexts. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal through its Editorial Board and Reviewers, stays abreast of discussions and developments in qualitative methodologies and approaches. Authors need to remember that, the journal will publish ‘papers that have a sound theoretical basis, methodological rigour with sufficient scope and scale to make important new contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge’ (Wiley & Sons, 2018). It will maintain its commitment to ‘disseminate scholarship and evidence to substantiate, influence and shape policy and occupational therapy practice locally and globally’ (Wiley & Sons). To achieve this commitment, authors of qualitative research studies must provide strong justification to support their methodological choices and clearly describe data collection, analysis and interpretation steps that will demonstrate trustworthiness of findings and design rigour.

Interest in qualitative research has increased in recent years regarding its relevance for developing the field of strategy and Human Resource Management further. Strategy and management research includes numerous examples of high quality studies using qualitative methods that have contributed to this field. Moreover, highly ranked management journals have published special issues on qualitative research. Especially in the realm of Human Resource Management, a strong discussion on the status of theory and research has evolved (see e.g. Deadrick/Stone 2008). The increasing amount of articles regarding this topic displays that there is a growing demand for discussing the purpose, methods and the contribution of qualitative research (Pratt 2008). The Academy of Management has institutionalized workshops at their annual meetings where researchers share ideas and discuss qualitative research methods with a close link to their current research projects. In 2008 the German Academic Association for Business Research invited scholars to a pre-conference workshop at their annual meeting to discuss and reflect upon qualitative methods. Given this increase in the relevance of qualitative research methods, the German Journal of Human Resource Research is pleased to present a special issue on ‘Qualitative Methods in Research on Human Resource Management’.

HCI researchers are continually exploring new ways of engaging the public in participatory design and bringing creative making research activities to new audiences. In this paper, we interviewed individuals who independently began public and DIY installations for sharing miniature art among their neighbours. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participatory miniature art exchanges, commonly known as Free Little Art Galleries (FLAGs), organically spread in response to lockdowns and institutional constraints. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 20 FLAG ‘curators’ to understand the implications involved in setting up and maintaining these long-term deployments. From the analysis of these interviews, we provide 5 practical recommendations on supporting these types of deployments, and discuss how HCI researchers can expand upon these DIY participatory practices to bring creative ideation activities on the future of technology to broader audiences.

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.

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology