What Does Empathy and Understanding Look Like Across Communication Divides?

Chapter 1: World Views, Paradigms, and the Practice of Social Science Research Case 1. Quantitative Research Case 2. Qualitative Research Thinking about the Foundations and Practice of Research What This Book Is and Is Not About. What Warrants Our Attention? The Traditional Canon Alternative Paradigms New Techniques or New Paradigms? Chapter 2: History and Context of Paradigm Development Positivism: A Response to Metaphysical and Magical Explanations Critical Theory: A Response to Inequities in Society Interpretivism: A Response to the Excesses of Scientific Social Science The Special Cases of Postmodernism and Feminism Chapter 3: Foundational Issues: Postpositivist and Critical Perspectives Social Science Research: The View from the Postpositivist Paradigm Social Science Research: The View from the Critical Theory Paradigm Chapter 4: History and Foundations of Interpretivist Research (1) Nature of Reality. (2) Purpose of Research. (3) Acceptable Methodology/Data. (4) The Meaning of Data (5) Relationship of Research to Practice. The Implications of an Interpretivist Approach What Sorts of Research are Worthwhile? Examples of Interpretive Research Chapter 5: Frameworks for Qualitative Research Postpositivist Research Moments of Qualitative Research Some General Frameworks for Qualitative Research Chapter 6: General Guidelines for Qualitative Research Guidelines for Qualitative Research Situated or Contextual Understanding, Not Truth, is the Purpose of Research Accept Multiple Sources of Influence Take A Foundational Rather Than Technique Perspective Practice Recursive (Iterative ) and Emergent Data Collection and Analysis Use Multiple Sources of Data Think of Research as a Reflective Process The Researcher is the Primary Tool for Data Collection and Analysis An Emphasis on Participatory versus Nonparticipatory Research. Adopt an Open Approach Deal With Bias Directly Select Natural Contexts for Research Research Should be Holistic, Not Atomistic Research Involves More Than Induction and Deduction: Analogical Reasoning, Abduction, and Family Resemblances Alternatives to Postpositivist Criteria for Believability: Validity and Reliability Alternative Approaches to Validity and Reliability: Triangulation and More Conclusions? Aren't They Generalizations? Chapter 7: Methods of Qualitative Research Case 1: Action Research on a Pediatric Surgical Ward Established Qualitative Research Methods Ethnography Case Studies: Another Form of Qualitative Observation Interview Research Historigraphy Historiography: The Research Methods of History Innovative Methods Participatory Qualitative Research Emancipatory Research Critical Emancipatory Action Research Chapter 8: Approaches to Data Analysis and Intepretation The Purpose of Research General Theory Objective Description Hermeneutic (Verstehen) Understanding Story telling/Narrative Data Analysis Families Eyeballing the Data Connoisseurship: A Global Perspective Hermeneutics as a Data Analysis Method Grounded Theory Analytic Induction A Final Topic: The Ethics of Research Chapter 9: 21st Century Social Science: Peering into the Future Will the Cacophony Continue? Why Can't Social Science Converge on The Answer? Competition Linearity Dialog as an Alternative to Competition Three Approaches to Knowing in Greek Thought Plato Aristotle The Humanities Choices 20th Century Social Science Made Suppose We Chose Badly Two Theories That May Help Us Build 21st Century Social Science Poetic Logic Chaos and Complexity Theory: Another Route to a Nonlinea Social Science

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Qualitative social research in addictions publishing: Creating an enabling journal environment

The Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) has long been recognized as the gold standard approach to testing the efficacy of medicines. More recently the method is being used to test other healthcare interventions—such as surgical interventions, medical devices, wound management techniques, and also nursing interventions. For many years the RCT has been seen as an exclusively quantitative approach—possibly as a result of its use predominantly by medical researchers and laboratory scientists—schooled in a particularly positivist research culture. Conversely, qualitative research—emerging from the social sciences—has been adopted most vigorously by nurse researchers who see its value in investigating the experiences of illness and the social processes surrounding health, individuals, and communities. In this editorial, we argue that qualitative research can enhance the quality, rigor, and depth of an RCT—but at present this is an opportunity that is frequently missed. We further propose that not only can qualitative research enhance the design and conduct of an RCT it also provides an opportunity for qualitative researchers (often nurse researchers) and research nurses (often not actively involved in undertaking research) to work with medical colleagues to improve the quality of RCT design. Embedding qualitative elements in an RCT also increases the opportunity for patients to be more actively engaged in the development of the RCT and also to provide the “patient voice” within the RCT—an element that can be missing from medically oriented quantitative research (Johnson, Bush, Brandzel, & Wernli, 2016). There are numerous elements in the design of an RCT where qualitative research could make a contribution. It is helpful to think about these being in three phases of an RCT. First, during the design of the study, qualitative methods can assist the development and focusing of RCT questions and the practicalities of the design in terms of patient acceptability. Qualitative research with individuals or patient advocate groups can help identify some of the key issues associated with the health issue in question—allowing the RCT design to be sensitive to patient experiences. This kind of work also provides strong evidence of the inclusion of “patients and the public” in the design and conduct of health related research—a key aspect of securing research funding as funders correctly identify this as an aspect of quality and inclusiveness (Gasson et al., 2015). During the study itself, qualitative research can elicit the experiences of the participants in ways quantitative research cannot—capturing the lived experience of trial participation—adding the patients voice to the physiological data being collected. A drug may indeed work physiologically during the careful monitoring of a trial—but if the drug regimen is too complex, cannot fit with day-to-day activities, or has too many unpleasant side effects its efficacy in the “real world” may be limited. Qualitative research with the relatives and/or carers of trial participants could also be illuminating by adding a further dimension to our understanding of how RCTs are experienced in the lives of those close to the study. Qualitative research with trail participants will also enable us to explore how the participation in a trial is experienced—allowing an analysis of risks to trial concordance, pressure points on compliance and the way participants feel about the process of the trial—their views and philosophy on randomization, for example. Useful information for RCT designs in the future. Following completion of the trial qualitative research can add to our monitoring of the long-term effects of the intervention—exploring the perceptions of the participants and their family in terms of acceptability and impact on quality of life over the longer term. Again, this understanding will contribute to the subsequent RCT design. It also is advantageous as it reinforces the ongoing nature of health care and can be a very important aspect of identifying paths to impact from a study (Dudley et al., 2015). In summary, RCTs on their own, without the benefits of qualitative research running through their design, conduct, and follow up, limit the value of such studies. Many of the limitations of the RCTs can be addressed by building strong qualitative elements into the design. This provides a real opportunity for nurse researchers skilled in qualitative research to use this expertise and work with medical colleagues to enhance the quality of RCTs. Often, research nurses working within the RCT are ideally placed to collect and analyze qualitative data—and in so doing making effective use of their relationships with trial participants and enhance the sense of active participation so often appreciated by those patients involved in an RCT.

Qualitative and descriptive research methods have been very common procedures for conducting research in many disciplines, including education, psychology, and social sciences. These types of research have also begun to be increasingly used in the field of second language teaching and learning. The interest in such methods, particularly in qualitative research, is motivated in part by the recognition that L2 teaching and learning is complex. To uncover this complexity, we need to not only examine how learning takes place in general or what factors affect it, but also provide more in-depth examination and understanding of individual learners and their behaviors and experiences. Qualitative and descriptive research is well suited to the study of L2 classroom teaching, where conducting tightly controlled experimental research is hardly possible, and even if controlled experimental research is conducted in such settings, the generalizability of its findings to real classroom contexts are questionable. Therefore, Language Teaching Research receives many manuscripts that report qualitative or descriptive research. The terms qualitative research and descriptive research are sometimes used interchangeably. However, a distinction can be made between the two. One fundamental characteristic of both types of research is that they involve naturalistic data. That is, they attempt to study language learning and teaching in their naturally occurring settings without any intervention or manipulation of variables. Nonetheless, these two types of research may differ in terms of their goal, degree of control, and the way the data are analyzed. The goal of descriptive research is to describe a phenomenon and its characteristics. This research is more concerned with what rather than how or why something has happened. Therefore, observation and survey tools are often used to gather data (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). In such research, the data may be collected qualitatively, but it is often analyzed quantitatively, using frequencies, percentages, averages, or other statistical analyses to determine relationships. Qualitative research, however, is more holistic and often involves a rich collection of data from various sources to gain a deeper understanding of individual participants, including their opinions, perspectives, and attitudes. Qualitative research collects data qualitatively, and the method of analysis is 572747 LTR0010.1177/1362168815572747Language Teaching ResearchEditorial editorial2015

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

The main aim of this chapter is to “set the scene” of this book, which attempts to provide an overview of the ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and methods constituting Asian qualitative tourism research. The following chapter is organized around three main parts. In the first part, we will discuss the notion of qualitative research in general. More specifically, with a journey through selected episodes of Western history, we will provide an overview of the main beliefs that have informed the development of qualitative research in the social sciences from classical antiquity to the current times. We believe that this part is important as several episodes of Western history influenced (and still influence) the development of both tourism qualitative research and Asian qualitative tourism research. In the second part, the current scenario concerning qualitative research in tourism will be presented. In this part, we will place emphasis on the various “turns” (e.g., the “critical turn,” the “narrative turn,” etc.) that have shaped the scholarly production of qualitative tourism scholars. Finally, in the third part, we will review and critically assess Asian qualitative tourism research, with the intent to critically evaluate its current status quo and the challenges faced by Asian tourism scholars and tourism scholars working in/on Asia. Based on the epistemological studies conducted by tourism scholars on Asia, we will highlight the existing gaps in knowledge concerning Asian qualitative tourism research and how the following chapters in the book attempt to address them.

The classical qualitative educational research design is the case study. Studies of school life (Cusick, 1973; Wolcott, 1973), of the larger social forces affecting schooling (Ogbu, 1974), and of efforts to promote planned educational change (Smith & Keith, 1971) have used qualitative data in describing a single social setting. Typically, such studies emphasize in-depth description but provide a weak basis for generalization to other settings. The last decade, however, has seen the emergence of a new form of qualitative research, one intended to strengthen its ability to generalize while preserving indepth description. These multisite qualitative studies address the same research question in a number of settings using similar data collection and analysis procedures in each setting. They consciously seek to permit cross-site comparison without necessarily sacrificing within-site understanding. Although having some roots in academic social sciences (e.g., see Clark, 1970; Whiting, 1963; Whiting & Whiting, 1975), multisite qualitative research arose primarily in response to pressures from the federal government in the 1970s for studies that could overcome some of the weaknesses of large quantitative evaluations without being limited by the particularism of the single-site case study. Like many hybrids, it is today quite robust. However, these multisite qualitative studies were typically expensive endeavors and were done for specific policy purposes, which the current federal administration seems neither to value nor to feel it can afford. There are two important reasons for reflecting on the historical development and potential utility of multisite qualitative policy research at this time. Although it is unwelcomed by most social scientists, the current hiatus in commissioning policy research at the federal level provides researchers and policymakers with an opportunity to consider these issues in some detail. Further, the field of policy research has matured to the point where such considerations can be very fruitful. In recent years qualitative researchers have moved beyond the need to defend the legitimacy of their craft in the policy arena (Rist, 1977; Smith, 1978; Stake, 1978). Moreover, quantitative researchers are beginning to acknowledge a role for qualitative research in policy and evaluation studies (Cronbach, 1982; Hoaglin, Light, McPeek, Mosteller, & Stoto, 1982) and to consider the proper balance of qualitative and quantitative techniques (Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Smith & Louis, 1982). In addition, practitioners of multisite qualitative policy research now exhibit sufficient confidence in their craftsmanship to begin a process of public self-criticism with an eye to improving their methods (Firestone & Herriott, 1982; Miles, 1979; Smith & Louis, 1982; Yin, 1981). Efforts to examine multisite

We are flooded with a wave of writings on causality in the social sciences during the last decades. The same holds for the relationship between quantitative and qualitative research in the social sciences. An enormous amount of texts appears on (causality in) qualitative research, mostly in a controversy with quantitative research. These writings induced us to develop the thesis of “unity in diversity”, i.e., that there is no difference “in principle” between causality in qualitative and quantitative research, because both are supported by what I will call an “experimental logic”. In developing this thesis a plea is being made for going back to the sources. A historical overview of theories of causality is presented, which develops into two prominent views: INUS-causation and causal realism. A historical framework is also outlined for the opposition between quantitative and qualitative research, in which French positivism and British empiricism are opposed to German neo-kantianism and neo-hegelianism. After having developed the thesis of “unity in diversity” for this historical framework, the same is being done for the recent literature: “mixed methods research”, the book DSI of KKV, the reactions of David Collier and “QCA” of Charles Ragin. At the end the question of small-n research and the case n = 1 is examined.

Welcome to the second issue of Volume 43 of the IASSIST Quarterly (IQ 43:2, 2019). Four papers are presented in this issue on qualitative research support. This special issue arises from conversations in the Qualitative Social Science and Humanities Data Interest Group (QSSHDIG) at IASSIST about how best to support qualitative researchers. This group was founded in 2016 to explore the challenges and opportunities facing data professionals in the social sciences and humanities, and has focused on using, reusing, sharing, and archiving of qualitative, textual, and other non-numeric data.
 In ‘Annotation for transparent inquiry (ATI),’ Sebastian Karcher and Nic Weber present their work on a new approach to transparency in qualitative research by the same name, which they have been exploring at the Qualitative Data Repository at the University of Syracuse, New York. As one solution to the problem of ‘showing one’s work’ in qualitative research, ATI allows researchers to link final reports back to the underlying qualitative and textual data used to support a claim. Using the example of Hypothes.is, they discuss the positives and negatives of ATI, particularly the amount of time required to annotate a qualitative article effectively and technical limitations in widespread web display.
 The next article highlights how archived materials can be re-used by qualitative researchers and used to build their arguments. In ‘Research driven approaches to archival discovery,’ Diana Marsh examines what qualitative researchers need from the collections at the National Anthropological Archives in the United States, in order to improve archival discovery for those not as accustomed to working in the archives.
 In ‘Bringing method to the madness,’ Mandy Swygart-Hobaugh, Leader of the Research Data Services Team at the Georgia State University Library, outlines a project created to bridge the gap between training researchers to use qualitative data software and training them in qualitative methods. Her answer has been a collaborative workshop with a sociology professor who provides a methodological framework while she applies those principles to a project in NVivo. These successful workshops have helped to encourage researchers to consider qualitative methods while at the same time promoting the use of CAQDAS software.
 Jonathan Cain, Liz Cooper, Sarah DeMott, and Alesia Montgomery in their article ‘Where QDA is hiding?’ draw on a study originally conducted for QSSHDIG to create a list of qualitative data services in libraries. When they realized that finding these services was quite difficult, they expanded the study to examine the discoverability of library sites supporting QDA. This study of 95 academic library websites provides insight into the issues of finding and accessing library websites that support the full range of qualitative research needs. They also outline the key characteristics of websites that provide more accessible access to qualitative data services.
 We thank our authors for participating in this special issue and providing their insights on qualitative data and research. If you are interested in issues related to qualitative research, then please join the Qualitative Social Sciences and Humanities Data Interest Group. Starting with IASSIST 2019 in Australia, our interest group has a new leadership team with two of our authors, Sebastian Karcher and Alesia Montgomery, taking over as co-conveners. We are certain that they would love to hear your ideas for the group, and we look forward to working with the qualitative data community more in the future.
 Lynda Kellam, Cornell Institute for Social & Economic Research
 Celia Emmelhainz, University of California, Berkeley

Interviews and the Philosophy of Qualitative Research Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences, by Irving Seidman (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press, 1998. InterViews: An Introduction Qualitative Research by Steinar Kvale. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, by Herbert J. Rubin and Irene S. Rubin. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995. Interviewing is key many forms of qualitative educational research; we interview respondents for oral histories, life histories, ethnographies, and case studies (see Tierney & Dilley, 2002, for an overview of interviewing in education). Despite the primacy of verbal data in qualitative research, basic introductions qualitative research (including Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Merriam, 1998; and Rossman & Rallis, 1998) and to guides for conducting qualitative projects (such as Goodall, 2000) include only sections on interviewing. Only within the past decade have book-length explorations of interviewing been produced for an audience of educational researchers (as opposed to, say, anthropologists or sociologists). Of those, three specifically acknowledge the philosophical foundations of interview methodologies. Each examines, in complementary ways, the relationships between philosophy and protocol, epistemology and research, words and meanings. Irving Seidman's Interviewing as Qualitative Research (1998) is grounded in the phenomenological tradition of three distinct, thematic interviews designed question meanings of experience. I find his work is a good starting point for training new researchers, not because the structure of phenomenological interviewing is better than other forms of qualitative interviewing, but because Seidman ties the core of phenomenology the qualitative philosophy. Interviewing, Seidman writes, provides access the context of people's behavior and thereby provides a way for researchers understand the meaning of that behavior. A basic assumption in in-depth interviewing research is that the meaning people make of their experience affects the way they carry out that experience .... Interviewing allows us put behavior in context and provides access understanding their action. (1998, p. 4) Meaning is not just the facts, but rather the understandings one has that are specific the individual (what was said) yet transcendent of the specific (what is the relation between what was said, how it was said, what the listener was attempting ask or hear, what the speaker was attempting convey or say). Just as language signifies and is constituted by specifics and abstracts, so too does qualitative research--and interviewing in particular. There are skills--physical, social, mental, communicative--that embody the act of interviewing, but those alone will not determine answers research questions. For such determinations, budding researchers must learn the skill of comprehension, the complex aptitude and competence of reflection and representation which are perhaps ultimately unteachable by any method than trial and error. As Seidman states, Researchers must ask themselves what they have learned from doing the interviews, studying the transcripts, marking and labeling them, crafting profiles, and organizing categories of excerpts. What connective threads are there among the experiences of the participants they interviewed? How do they understand and explain these connections? What do they understand now that they did not understand before they began the interviews? What surprises have there been? What confirmations of previous instincts? How have their interviews been consistent with the literature? How inconsistent? How have they gone beyond? (Seidman, 1998, pp. 110-111) Those are questions for the interviewer, a continuing conversation with one's self about the nature of how we have learned what we know. …

The Coming of Age for Qualitative Research: Embracing the Diversity of Qualitative Methods

The dichotomous debate between objectivity and subjectivity in Social Sciences and the differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches in research are related to the strong demand for validation and accreditation of studies. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to discuss quality in qualitative research, through a systematic analysis of the typologies of triangulation strategy, highlighting the following quality dimensions in research: reliability, credibility, transferability and confirmability. There is a considerable amount of research about quality in qualitative research, as well as about triangulation. However, the main differentiator of this paper is the systematic presentation of triangulation typologies, which allow for the improvement of quality in qualitative research. The authors believe that the focus on "how to" improve quality, and not quality itself, makes this paper original. Among the main findings, it can be highlighted the effort to systematize and present guidelines in order to improve credibility in qualitative research, by means of the triangulation strategy presented in a framework that will allow the reader to have a better understanding of the proposals in this work. The authors understand that the main implication of this paper is mainly in providing guidance to researchers, particularly those dealing with qualitative research, on how they could improve the quality of their research.

In order to design appropriate antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, it is crucial to understand challenges to tackling antibiotic resistance (AMR) specific to each healthcare setting. Antibiotic prescribing in primary care accounts for most prescriptions with a significant proportion considered clinically inappropriate. Qualitative research has a long history in social sciences, but its value and contribution are still contested in medical journals including in the AMR/AMS field. However, through its focus on understanding, meaning making and explaining, qualitative research can offer insights in how to improve AMS efforts in primary care. This paper provides an overview of unique considerations, contributions and challenges related to using qualitative research in AMS to help the AMS community new to qualitative research to utilize its potential most fully. First, we discuss specific considerations for AMS in relation to the stages of conducting a qualitative study, including identifying a research question and choosing a suitable methodology; sampling appropriate participants; planning a recruitment strategy; choosing a method of data collection; and conducting data analysis. These are illustrated with examples of qualitative AMS studies in primary care. Second, we highlight the importance of patient and public involvement throughout all stages of the project and ensuring quality in qualitative AMS research. Finally, drawing on these considerations, we make a further case for the value and contribution of qualitative methodologies in AMS/AMR research while outlining future directions for both AMS and qualitative research, including the need for studies with diverse actors; interdisciplinary collaborations; and complex decisions on methodologies and timelines.

ObjectiveParticipation in qualitative research, particularly analysis of recorded medical dialogue, offers real-time, longitudinal immersion that can strengthen clinical trainee communication skills. The study objective was to explore how qualitative research participation impacts clinical trainees’ self-perceived communication skills development and practice.MethodsIn this study, a 17-member multidisciplinary working group of child life specialists, advanced practice providers, undergraduate/medical students, residents, fellows, attending physicians, social scientists, and career researchers with recent qualitative and communication research experience assembled to discuss this topic using a structured discussion guide. Content analysis was used to identify concepts and themes.ResultsThree key themes characterizing the impact of qualitative research participation on aspiring clinicians’ communication skills development and practice arose – the 3Cs: (1) Connection, therapeutic alliance, and accompaniment; (2) Clarity and prognostic communication; (3) Compassion, empathy, and understanding. Participants emphasized that qualitative research learning improved their understanding of patient/family lived experiences, preparing them for future clinical encounters, strengthening their emotional intelligence, and promoting self-care, resilience, and professional affirmation.ConclusionsImmersion in clinical communication through participation in qualitative research is an under-utilized resource for supporting clinical trainees in communication skills development.InnovationThe process of collaborative knowledge production through the collective exploration of an a priori question related to group members’ collective experiences is methodologically innovative. Further, re-thinking qualitative research participation as an underutilized educational opportunity is pedagogically novel, and leaders in medical education and qualitative research should collaborate to realize the potential of this teaching tool.