Chapter 2

1. Chapter 2 Designing Qualitative Studies

2. “Flexible Structure” • An issue that must be addressed early in the design process: • Tension between flexibility and structure • Novice researchers need to begin their work with a solid plan… • But be open and receptive to developmental changes as the study is being implemented • Basic elements that need to be addressed in a qualitative research design: • Place of theory, research questions, contexts, participants, data collection strategies, data analysis procedures, and the nature of anticipated findings

3. Theory Wolcott (1995): “Theory is supposed to help researchers of any persuasion clarify what they are up to and to help them to explain to others what they are up to.” Methodological Theory Substantive Theory

4. Methodological Theory • 1st step: Place proposed study in a research paradigm and identify what kind of study is being planned • Addresses researcher’s answers to ontological and epistemological questions • 2nd step: Identify what kind of qualitative research is to be done within the chosen paradigm

5. Substantive Theory • Theory that is used to describe and explain the phenomena to be investigated or the substance of the study • Necessary to articulate during design phase, but still important to consider alternate theoretical explanations as the study progresses • Some researchers worry that looking at other studies will bias the ways they look and the what they interpret what they find • But this knowledge will help a researcher know what in the field takes to be known, what is possible, and what needs further exploration

6. Research Questions • Give direction to study, limit the scope of investigation, and provide a device for evaluating progress and satisfactory completion • The only component that ties all of the other elements of a design • Carving out a piece of territory for exploration • Asking if a research questions have been answered provides a way to judge if enough has been done • Research questions will look different depending on the paradigm • Hatch suggests one overarching research question with subquestions that remain general in nature but offer more specific direction • Should be: open-ended, few in number, and stated in straightforward language

7. Contexts • A physical setting in which social action occurs, a set of participants and their relationships to one another, and the activities in which participants are involved • Graue and Walsh (1995): “A context is a culturally and historically situated place and time.” • Are not static entities that can be controlled or manipulated (like in quantitative research) • They are complex, dynamic and nested within larger cultural, political, and historical frameworks that must be considered as studies are planned

8. Contexts: Considerations • Deciding where to do study is a key decision, and making a plan for how to negotiate access and entry is an important element in a qualitative research design • Need to be concerned that the study will provide data that make it possible to answer research questions • Other concerns: accessibility, feasibility, and familiarity • Kind of research planned is another important consideration • Frames the generation of questions and influences context selection decision

9. Contexts: Research Designs • Research designs should include: • Step-by-step plans for finding out the rules and regulations of the institutions involved; • Identifying the names and/or positions of key gatekeepers; • Specifying who will be contacted, when, and how; • Detailing what gatekeepers will be told about the study; • and articulating how formal permission will be acquired

10. Contexts: Gaining Access • Large school districts will often have an office that is responsible for granting formal permission • Permission usually contingent on approval of a school-level administrator • Initial contacts with research participants or gatekeepers set the tone for the rest of the study • May be beneficial to make informal contact with building principals, teachers, and parents to assess the likelihood that they will agree to participate or allow access

11. Contexts: Research Bargains • Be ready and able to explain to potential gatekeepers • Specify the roles and responsibilities of the researcher and each participant • What the researcher will be doing, when and for how long; • What will happen to the data of the study and indicate if and when the participants will have access to the data and/or results • Will have elements similar with informed consent forms but less formal and more flexible • Can use general statements of purpose but… • Ethical necessity to signal that you are a researcher studying something with identifiable boundaries

12. Contexts: Studying Own Contexts • Hatch discourages • Too difficult for educators to pull back from their insider perspectives and see things with the eyes of a researcher • “Familiarity breeds inattention” • You’re there to capture what insiders take for granted

13. Participants • Qualitative researchers try to understand the perspectives of their participants or informants • Must be willing to allow researchers to watch them acting in their natural environments and/or talk with them about their actions and intentions • No direct relationship between number of participants and the quality of a study • Questions of number have to do with research questions and levels of analysis

14. Participants According to Paradigm • Postpositivists • See themselves as data gathering instruments • Need close relationships with informants • Analysis accomplished by researcher alone • Constructivists • Participants are coconstructors of the knowledge generated by studies • Often help decide how research questions might be modified; • What other participants might be involved; • How richer data might be collected; • and how analyses might be framed • Usual for them to have a say in how the final product will look

15. Participants According to Paradigm • Critical/Feminist • Help participants recognize and challenge the oppressive conditions under which they live • Select participants who understand the transformative intent of critical or feminist work • Poststructuralist • No particular relationship with participants • Tentativeness about the ability to know the lived experiences of participants and reluctance to try to represent lives in text make relations with participants ambiguous

16. Participants: Rules of Thumb • Kind of research approach selected will affect participant selection criteria within all paradigms • The fewer the participants, the more time spent with each one • Kvale (1996): “Interview as many subjects as necessary to find out what you need to know.” • The fewer the number of participants, the more important it is to include multiple data sources

17. Participants: Sampling • Participant selection also determined by the context and unit of analysis • Homogenous samples • Participants share common characteristics • Useful for studying subgroups in depth • Maximum variation samples • Opposite of homogenous, based on differences in characteristics • Useful in studies seeking to find central themes

18. Participants: Sampling • Intensity sampling • Finds participants who manifest intense forms of the phenomena of interest • Useful in studies looking to understand the development and expression of such phenomena • Convenience sampling • Readymade sample that is both convenient and available • Most common sampling strategy, but least desirable • Loses integrity and ability to make a solid contribution

19. Participants: Relationships • Important to think through and anticipate relationships • Will take time and energy • Things will not always go smoothly • Building and maintaining rapport is important • Participants are ultimate gatekeepers • Whether and to what extent the researcher will have access to the desired information • Must help participants “learn how to be studied” • Encouraged to write up a research bargain

20. Participants: Research Bargains • Should include descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of researcher and participants • First think through what kind of relationship is desirable depending on: • Paradigm; • Kind of study; • And research questions asked • Describe what study will involve and what will be expected of participants • What they will be doing, when, and for how long • What they should do to prepare, what to do when with researcher, and what they can tell others • In language that is easily and appropriately understood • Need to establish a system for participants to let researcher know if they have questions or feel uncomfortable

21. Data Collection Strategies • Questions of data collection should be asked all along the design process • Specify • What data will be collected; • How and when data will be collected; • And why the data will be collected • Rationale should come from paradigm, research questions, contexts, and participants • Language that includes “at least” so many hours of observation, so many interviews, or so much artifact data

22. Data Analyses Procedures • Most mysterious and most difficult part • Comes easier with experience • Just saying data will be analyzed qualitatively or inductively is not enough • Need more details about when and how analysis will be accomplished • Readers of design proposals want to have confidence that researchers know what they’re doing • Don’t want to waste time or money

23. Data Analyses Procedures • Choice of procedure will depend on previous design decisions • Most qualitative studies will not fit into a specific model • Better to say “I will adapt…” or “I will apply the principles…” of certain procedures rather than saying “I will use…” • Because each study is unique, procedures need to be spelled out in straightforward terms • Need to specify what researcher expects to do, when, and how • When will be answered: • Analysis will begin after data collected, begin with the first data collected, or that it will occur at set stages throughout

24. Data Analyses Procedures • Rule of Thumb: the more open the research questions, the more important to have analysis built into the data collection process • Answering how is more difficult • Based on organizing data analysis in ways that answer research questions and follow logic of qualitative design • Require careful reading and rereading of the data • Identify certain procedures to be followed • Specify some method for dealing with counterevidence or discrepant cases

25. Data Analyses Procedures • Should be included in research design: • Identify topic areas to be analyzed • Read the data, marking entries related to topics • Read entries by topic, recording main ideas in entries on a summary sheet • Look for patterns, categories, relationships within topic areas • Read data, coding entries according to patterns identified • Search for nonexamples of your patterns • Decide if your patterns are supported by the data • Look for relationships among the patterns identified • Write your patterns as one-sentence generalizations • Select data excerpts to support your generalizations

26. Data Analyses Procedures • Computer programs • Can help with data analyses but no program can do the “mindwork” necessary to interpret and analyze data • Identifying specific program to organize data fine; saying that it will do analysis is not • Conclusion • Important to have a plan for data analysis before gathering data

27. Nature of Anticipated Findings • Anticipate the form findings will take; the nature of the findings • Form will flow directly from the kind of research approach that is applied • Having a basic idea gives researchers a frame of reference for thinking about what they are doing during each step of the process

28. Nature of Anticipated Findings • Organizing and presenting qualitative data (3 methods) • Description • Data speaks for itself • Goal is to provide accounts that represent as close as possible what is going on in particular contexts • Analysis • Transforming data by way of searching for relationships and key factors that can be supported by evidence in the data • Careful, systematic methods • Careful documentation grounded in the data • Products: generalizations that represent essential features or relationships

29. Nature of Anticipated Findings • Interpretation • Understanding and explanation are the goals • Moving deeper than description or analysis • Here the researcher inserts his or her own thinking into the data transformation process • Paradigm Emphasis • Postpositivists • Mostly analysis • Constructivits • All three, working with participants as coconstructors • Critical/Feminist • Mostly interpretation based on political perspectives • Poststructuralists • Everything, including reality, is an interpretation

30. Institutional Review • Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) • Review research projects to be sure they are designed in ways that protect research participants from harm • Made up of experienced researchers • With knowledge of legal risks • Meet regularly to approve, reject, or ask for modification of applications • Either “short forms” and/or “expedited review procedures” for projects that appear to offer little to no risk • Contrast to “full review”

31. Institutional Review • Elements of a full review • Identification of Project • Project Objectives • Description of Research Participants • Methods and Procedures • Specific Risks and Protection Measures • Benefits • Methods of Obtaining Informed Consent • Qualifications of Investigator(s) • Facilities and Equipment • Responsibility of the Principal/Co-Principal Investigator

32. 1. Identification of Project • Identifies • Who will be doing the project • Who will be advising the researcher • The type of project proposed • The title of project • Starting and estimated ending date • If any external agencies are involved in funding • Most of this info established by filling in blank forms • Faculty member must be approved as advisor, principal investigator (PI), or co-principal investigator (Co-PI)

33. 2. Project Objectives A narrative describing rationale, goals and objectives, and anticipated significance of the research Use language easily understood by individuals on the IRB from different disciplines

34. 3. Description of Research Participants • Clear description: • Who the participants will be • How many • How to gain access & recruiting methods • And criteria for selecting • If using groups whose ability to voluntarily consent questioned, must provide rationale • (i.e. children, prisoners, mentally handicapped) • If providing an incentive, must provide rationale • Safeguards described so no individual feels coerced into participating

35. 4. Methods and Procedures • Describe exactly what will be done in terms of data collection and analysis • An abstracted version of research proposal with emphasis on exactly how participants will be affected by such procedures • Anticipate any potential risk

36. 5. Specific Risks and Protection Measures • Describe: • The nature and amount of potential risk • Precautions used to lessen risks • And effectiveness of precautions • Means of assuring confidentiality • Storage and disposal of data • Who will have access to the data • Must provide rationale

37. 6. Benefits • Whenever risks are evident, must be justified by benefits • Benefits to participants and/or society • Careful not to inflate benefits • Payments are incentives, not benefits • Claim research collection therapeutic to participants, when may not be • Developing close relationships with participants and claiming that it will benefit both personally and professionally is presumptuous

38. 7. Methods of Informed Consent • Elements in document need to be part of the information that participants receive prior to giving their official consent • Describe to IRB exact methods for obtaining consent • Copies included • Participants given the opportunity to consider whether or not to consent and minimize the possibility of coercion • Capable adults give “consent” • Children and others incapable give “assent” • Language must be understandable to participants • See page 64 for all elements required in consent form

39. 8. Qualifications of Investigator(s) • IRBs need assurance that the researcher knows what they are doing • Usually why dissertation advisors appointed as principal or co-principal investigators • The more vulnerable the participant group, the more important for the researcher has appropriate experience and expertise

40. 9. Facilities and Equipment • Describe & Provide: • Facilities and equipment to be used • An evaluation of their adequacy for the intended project • Letters of permission from the organization supplying the facilities • Written permission from appropriate school representatives

41. 10. Responsibility of the Principal/Co-Principal Investigator • Sample from the University of Tennessee: • Approval obtained from IRB before introducing any change into the research project • Development of any unexpected risks must be immediately reported to IRB • An annual review and progress report must be submitted when requested by the IRB • Signed informed consent documents must be kept during the study and for at least three years after at a location approved by IRB

42. Ethics • Researchers require a considerable amount of time from participants and to reveal a lot about themselves; if not careful, researchers give little back • Reciprocal arrangements specify what the researcher will be contributing to the bargain • Labor-related contributions • Expertise-related contributions • Plans for leaving must be developed • Leave participants in a vulnerable place • Children especially • Explain at the beginning what will be expected of the relationship at the end of the study

43. Ethics • Make sure teachers do not feel coerced into participating • May be reluctant to say no people they perceive as “experts” in their field, perceive themselves as subordinate • May think that refusal looks like they have something to hide • Illegal Activity • Or unsafe behavior, practices that place individuals at risk, etc. • By law, child abuse must be reported • This information must be stated directly in informed consent documents • If discriminating is occurring, nature of study may change, but what would be more preferable: completing study as planned or regretting that you didn’t try to help?

44. Text taken directly from: Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press