Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology

1. Michelle Butina, PhD, MLS(ASCP)CM[⇑][1] 1. University of Kentucky, College of Health Sciences, Lexington, KY 2. Suzanne Campbell, PhD, MLS(ASCP)CM 1. Seward County Community College/Area Technical School, Liberal, KS 3. Wendy Miller, EdD, MT(ASCP)SI 1. Elgin Community College, Elgin, IL <!-- --> 1. Address for Correspondence: Michelle Butina, PhD, MLS(ASCP)CM, Assistant Professor and Program Director, Medical Laboratory Science, University of Kentucky, College of Health Sciences, 900 South Limestone Street, CTW Bldg. Rm. 126E, Lexington, KY 40536-0200, (859) 218-0852, Michelle.Butina{at}uky.edu 1. Compare and contrast qualitative and quantitative research methods and their uses. 2. Identify the five commonly used qualitative research methods. > "Within the last twenty years qualitative research has become a mature field of study with its own literature base, research journals, special interest groups, and regularly scheduled conferences". > > - Dr. Sharan B. Merriam, professor of adult education and continuing education, University of Georgia, 2009 INTRODUCTION Medical laboratory practitioners know how to perform experiments and have participated in surveys. However qualitative research and its methods remain an unknown to many in the medical laboratory science profession. This series provides readers with an introduction to qualitative research methods. A simple definition of qualitative research is not possible; therefore a description of its purpose and characteristics is provided. As Merriam (2009) described, "Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences." The primary characteristics of qualitative research include: 1) the focus on understanding peoples' experiences with intent to convey experiences into meaning, 2) the researcher is the key instrument for data collection and analysis, 3) the research process is inductive and not deductive, and 4) the product of qualitative research is richly descriptive. Other characteristics of qualitative research include that the study design is often emergent and flexible, data is often collected in the natural setting, multiple forms of data may be collected, and sample selection is usually purposeful and small.1,2 Qualitative versus Quantitative There are three approaches to research, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. The qualitative research approach was introduced and described in the section above. A… 1. Compare and contrast qualitative and quantitative research methods and their uses. 2. Identify the five commonly used qualitative research methods. [1]: #corresp-1

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to change health care, with some studies showing proof of concept of a provider-level performance in various medical specialties. However, there are many barriers to implementing AI, including patient acceptance and understanding of AI. Patients' attitudes toward AI are not well understood. We systematically reviewed the literature on patient and general public attitudes toward clinical AI (either hypothetical or realised), including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods original research articles. We searched biomedical and computational databases from Jan 1, 2000, to Sept 28, 2020, and screened 2590 articles, 23 of which met our inclusion criteria. Studies were heterogeneous regarding the study population, study design, and the field and type of AI under study. Six (26%) studies assessed currently available or soon-to-be available AI tools, whereas 17 (74%) assessed hypothetical or broadly defined AI. The quality of the methods of these studies was mixed, with a frequent issue of selection bias. Overall, patients and the general public conveyed positive attitudes toward AI but had many reservations and preferred human supervision. We summarise our findings in six themes: AI concept, AI acceptability, AI relationship with humans, AI development and implementation, AI strengths and benefits, and AI weaknesses and risks. We suggest guidance for future studies, with the goal of supporting the safe, equitable, and patient-centred implementation of clinical AI.

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

Mixed methods research (the combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study) has developed rapidly in the last few years. This methodological approach is becoming increasingly articulated, attached to research practice and recognized, along with qualitative research and quantitative research, as the third major research approach (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007).The scientific fields with more tradition in using and developing mixed methods research are Education, Sociology, Psychology and Health Sciences. This methodological approach is championed by methodologists from these fields such as John Creswell, Abbas Tashakkori, Burke Johnson, Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Jennifer Greene, Charles Teddlie and David Morgan (Denscombe, 2008). Books specifically focused on mixed methods research are being published in these fields (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009; Bergman, 2008; Brewer & Hunter, 2006; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, 2011; Greene, 2007; Morse & Niehaus, 2009; Niglas, 2004; Ridenour & Newman, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, 2010; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).In January 2007 the first issue of a journal solely devoted to mixed methods research (Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Sage Publications) was published. The two founding co-editors, John Creswell and Abbas Tashakkori, are researchers in the field of Education. Other methodological journals that publish mixed methods studies include this journal (International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, also launched in 2007), along with Quality and Quantity, Field Methods and the International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Empirical articles that employ a mixed methods approach using this distinct name in the title are also published in Education, Sociology, Psychology and Health Sciences, and literature reviews that analyze the prevalence and application of mixed methods are carried out. An annual conference devoted to mixed methods is organized by schools and researchers from these fields (in 2011 the 7th International Mixed Methods Conference was hosted by the School of Healthcare in the University of Leeds, UK). Moreover, a Special Interest Group on Mixed Methods Research was formed in the American Educational Research Association in 2005. In summary, as noted by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), mixed methods research has only been carefully used and examined in a handful of disciplines.In the case of Business and Management, our fields of inquiry have not embraced this methodological approach as enthusiastically as the fields described. Although there are calls for using mixed methods research in Business and Management fields (Cameron, 2011, Currall & Towler, 2003; Jick, 1979; Molina-Azorin, 2007), the acceptance and attention devoted to mixed methods research is very low in relation to other fields. There is not any specific book on mixed methods research in Business and Management. To date and to the best knowledge of the two special issue editors, a special issue on mixed methods has not yet been published in any Business and Management journal. Moreover, Creswell and Tashakkori (2007) make the pertinent point that the literature base about mixed methods research may not be well known to individuals in specific fields. Cameron and Molina-Azorin (2011) and Molina-Azorin (2011) confirm this issue in the case of Business and Management studies.In addition, in contrast to studies in the fields of Education, Sociology, Psychology and Health Sciences, the term 'mixed methods' is not usually used in the title of mixed methods studies in Business and Management. Furthermore, in the journal Organizational Research Methods, the main methodological journal in our field, the term 'mixed methods' is not a listed keyword. This issue also occurs in other business and management discipline journals.On the basis of such broad scanning evidence it seems likely that the advantages, possibilities, purposes, designs and potential of mixed methods research may be yet still unknown to many researchers in Business and Management. …

The aim of this study is two-fold: It first replicates previous studies on methods used in communication research, and then textually analyses each article in the five high ranking Communication journals of the United States published in the year 2016. A total of 160 articles were analyzed for their use in qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods, as well as the particular type of design qualitative or quantitative used. Findings indicate that most journals prefer quantitative articles as opposed to qualitative or mixed methods research. 59.37% of the articles were quantitative, while qualitative and mixed methods recorded 38.75 and 1.87% respectively. Further, findings also indicated that descriptive quantitative methods (53.68%) were mostly preferred over correlations, quasi-experiments, and experiments. Similarly, findings over qualitative research suggested that the grounding theory method (31%) was the most preferred over the four other qualitative research designs. The study, therefore, concludes that quantitative research articles with a focus on descriptive methods had a higher chance of being published in the US Communication Journals than qualitative methods. The lowest chances of publication were in mixed methods and ethnographic qualitative methods that recorded less than 2% probability of being published.

IntroductionVery few pragmatic and community‐level effectiveness trials integrate the use of qualitative research over all stages of the trial, to inform trial design, implementation optimization, results interpretation and post‐trial policy recommendations. This is despite the growing demand for mixed methods research from funding agencies and awareness of the vital importance of qualitative and mixed methods research for understanding trial successes and challenges.DiscussionWe offer examples from work we have been involved in to illustrate how qualitative research conducted within trials can reveal vital contextual factors that influence implementation and outcomes, can enable an informed adaptation of trials as they are being conducted and can lead to the formulation of theory regarding the social and behavioural pathways of intervention, while also enabling community engagement in trial design and implementation. These examples are based on published findings from qualitative studies embedded within two ongoing large‐scale studies demonstrating the population‐level impacts of universal HIV testing and treatment strategies in southern and eastern Africa, and a qualitative study conducted alongside a clinical trial testing the adaptation, acceptability and experience of short‐cycle therapy in children and adolescents living with HIV.ConclusionsWe advocate for the integration of qualitative with clinical and survey research methods in pragmatic clinical and community‐level trials and implementation studies, and for increasing visibility of qualitative and mixed methods research in medical journals. Qualitative research from trials ideally should be published along with clinical outcome data, either integrated into the “main” trial papers or published concurrently in the same journal issue. Integration of qualitative research within trials can help not only to understand the why behind success or failure of interventions in different contexts, but also inform the adaptation of interventions that can facilitate their success, and lead to new alternative strategies and to policy changes that may be vital for achieving public health goals, including the end of AIDS.

There is debate about the need for pilot studies in qualitative research and limited publications on its usefulness as a part of a mixed methods study which includes a qualitative phase. This qualitative pilot study was a part of a multiphase mixed methods research which investigated the nature of assessment in Jamaican secondary schools. The larger study aimed at developing a model for more effective implementation of formative assessment in the teaching of English at the secondary level. This article discusses the value of pilot studies in qualitative research in general and as a part of a multiphase mixed methods research. The qualitative pilot study was valuable in helping me to refine the research protocols, pre-empt possible challenges and increase my training and confidence in conducting qualitative research. Consequently, it added to the legitimation on the overall mixed methods research. Qualitative pilot studies are necessary especially for novice qualitative and mixed methods researchers.

Qualitative and mixed methods research designs are a unique form of research within sports medicine that are gaining traction. These designs are of particular use for novel research phenomena or phenomena not easily explained without context. Using a stepwise approach to qualitative and mixed methods research can improve the rigor of these types of study designs, ultimately helping to translate research to the community in question. This chapter details a stepwise approach to conducting qualitative and mixed methods research for beginners interested in applying these research designs. Supplemental information is included at the end of the chapter to help support advanced learning.

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. …

Living with nuclear energy: A systematic review of the psychological consequences of nuclear power

Psychological aspects of radiation risk perception by children after Chernobyl

Purpose: The paper aims to explore the role and significance of qualitative methods in the research process, particularly focusing on their ability to interpret and understand complex social phenomena. It highlights the complementarity between qualitative and quantitative approaches and their joint use in comprehensive research. Design/methodology/approach: This paper utilizes a theoretical approach to describe and analyze qualitative research methods, including observation, interviews, and group discussions. The discussion is grounded in a comparison with quantitative methods, emphasizing the interpretive and subjective aspects of qualitative research, which allows for a deeper understanding of phenomena. Findings: The paper finds that qualitative methods play a crucial role in providing insights into phenomena that cannot be quantified. It highlights the importance of qualitative research in building theories from observed experiences, the value of respondents’ personal experiences, and the essential interaction between researchers and participants. The findings also support the argument that qualitative and quantitative research are complementary, and using both approaches can enhance research outcomes. Research limitations/implications: The paper acknowledges that purely qualitative research may lack generalizability due to its focus on individual or small group data. It suggests future research should continue to integrate both qualitative and quantitative methods to enhance the validity of the results. Practical implications: While not directly aimed at providing commercial or economic recommendations, the findings emphasize the importance of incorporating qualitative methods in research processes to gain richer, more contextually grounded insights that can inform policy- making, social programs, and educational practices. Social implications: The research can influence public attitudes by promoting a more nuanced understanding of social phenomena. It underscores the value of qualitative research in capturing human experiences and behaviors, which could be used to inform social policy and educational reforms. Originality/value: This paper contributes to the field by offering a comprehensive exploration of qualitative research methods, highlighting their relevance in capturing the complexities of social phenomena. It is of value to researchers in social sciences, education, and policy development who seek to integrate qualitative approaches into their research methodologies. Keywords: qualitative research, observation, interviews, social phenomena, research methodology. Category of the paper: Research Paper, Conceptual Paper.

This article shares the authors’ reflections and experiences gained from a pilot study that was recently used in completing a larger qualitative educational research study on the challenges and opportunities for instructional leadership in inclusive secondary schools in Zimbabwe. Historically, pilot studies have not been reported. When interest in this area started to emerge, the focus was on quantitative research, especially in health-related disciplines. In recent times, there has been growing debate on the place of pilot studies in qualitative and mixed methods research. However, a number of questions still remain unanswered, especially in the area of educational research. One of the worrisome features of these questions seems to be the taken‑for‑granted assumption that once a researcher conceives of an educational research idea, they are automatically clear and specific on the onto-epistemological and methodological tools that may best be employed to answer the questions at hand. This view is reflected when, for example, the few writers on pilot studies generally specify a particular research approach, such as importance of pilot studies in quantitative research, importance of pilot studies in qualitative research, or importance of pilot studies in mixed methods research, and do not talk about the value of a pilot study in educational research learning as a search for a good theory-method fit. This article focuses on pilot studies in educational research learning in order to close this gap. The central theme in this article is that pilot-studying may itself determine, for example, whether a study should follow a qualitative, mixed methods or quantitative approach. It also determines the appropriateness of research tools for the task at hand. Specifically, pilot-studying helps especially student researchers to find an appropriate theory-method fit and thereby makes researching possible. Following a pilot study, educational research that was originally planned to be mixed methods research or quantitative research may end up embracing a qualitative approach and vice versa. Our desire to share reflections and experiences gained in completing the main PhD study which informs the current article, coupled with ongoing debates on pilot studies in educational research, inspired us to pen this article. The article contributes to scholarship by elaborating and adding new insights on the work of earlier writers on the important research practice of pilot-studying in educational research processes. &#x0D; &#x0D; Received: 29 September 2021 / Accepted: 8 December 2021 / Published: 5 March 2022

While it is generally recognized that qualitative methods are vital to clinical research, anecdotal evidence suggested that institutional support for qualitative and mixed methods research was lacking at our large New England hospital. To better understand research community needs in a structured way, we implemented a case study to quantify the importance and utilization of this research design, to evaluate institutional support and training needs, and develop project and community level supports. A survey of research directors found that 65% indicated that qualitative and mixed methods research is important to their departments’ research goals, and that monetary support is necessary (78%). An open call for research projects resulted in 11 enrolled, representing 10 departments. We found that 70% of these researchers had little experience and that education was needed across several areas: study design (73%), data collection methods (73%), coding methods (91%), “hands-on” coding support (27%), analysis (100%), and write-up (100%). To address these issues, educational and community-level support was developed including training webinars, project level consulting support, a researcher support forum and a SharePoint site (to house training and reference materials in a central location). With this support, researchers were able to successfully apply qualitative and mixed methods across a range of specialties, and, at the time of this writing, resulted in grant support for 4 projects, 3 publications and 5 posters at national meetings. A post-case study survey found that most researchers (&gt;90%) felt that qualitative methods are important to their career. Results from the case study demonstrate that implementation of effective qualitative and mixed methods research support at a large research hospital is feasible, well received, and academically productive, and requires a mix of education, project specific and community-level support.