When Relational Theory Is Absent from Qualitative Health Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-97
Author(s):  
Chris Kaposy
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Relational Theory ◽  
Qualitative Health Research

Appraising qualitative health research—towards a differentiated approach

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111772
Author(s):  
Veronika Williams ◽  
Anne-Marie Boylan ◽  
Nicola Newhouse ◽  
David Nunan
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Qualitative Health Research

Five Approaches to Qualitative Comparison Groups in Health Research: A Scoping Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Lindsay
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Qualitative Comparison ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Comparison Groups

Qualitative researchers have much to gain by using comparison groups. Although their use within qualitative health research is increasing, the guidelines surrounding them are lacking. The purpose of this article is to explore the extent to which qualitative comparison groups are being used within health research and to outline the lessons learned in using this type of methodology. Through conducting a scoping review, 31 articles were identified that demonstrated five different types of qualitative comparison groups. I highlight the key benefits and challenges in using this approach.

Population Health and Social Governance: A Review, an Update, Some Clarifications, and a Response

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 731-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick O’Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Social Governance ◽  
Depth Study ◽  
And Control

Critical theory is a paradigm that promotes viewpoints that are alternative and, at times, contrary to mainstream beliefs and dictates. In 2012, I adopted this perspective to review the role of ethnography and surmised that the data which arise from this research approach, which I described as an in-depth study of cultures, can be used to discipline and control these groups. In this edition of Qualitative Health Research, another author has critiqued this position. In this article, I review this critique, reiterate my position, update the data I used for my 2012 article, and highlight how I navigate what I feel is a tension between critical theory and practice.

scholarly journals Revisiting a Boy Named Jim

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160940691880916
Author(s):  
Katherine Bischoping
Keyword(s):  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Vicarious Traumatization ◽  
Childhood Experience ◽  
Good Story ◽  
Common Criteria ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
The Social ◽  
Analysis Strategies

Using examples from qualitative health research and from my childhood experience of reading a poem about a boy devoured by a lion (Belloc, 1907), I expand on a framework for reflexivity developed in Bischoping and Gazso (2016). This framework is unique in first synthesizing works from multidisciplinary narrative analysis research in order to arrive at common criteria for a “good” story: reportability, liveability, coherence, and fidelity. Next, each of these criteria is used to generate questions that can prompt reflexivity among qualitative researchers, regardless of whether they use narrative data or other narrative analysis strategies. These questions pertain to a broad span of issues, including appropriation, censorship, and the power to represent, using discomfort to guide insight, addressing vicarious traumatization, accommodating diverse participant populations, decolonizing ontology, and incorporating power and the social into analyses overly focused on individual meaning-making. Finally, I reflect on the affinities between narrative – in its imaginatively constructed, expressive, and open-ended qualities – and the reflexive impulse.

“Should I Send a Condolence Card?” Promoting Emotional Safety in Qualitative Health Research Through Reflexivity and Ethical Mindfulness

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 652-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn C. Bowtell ◽  
Susan M. Sawyer ◽  
Rosalie A. Aroni ◽  
Julie B. Green ◽  
Rony E. Duncan
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Emotional Safety

scholarly journals Two Approaches to Focus Group Data Collection for Qualitative Health Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160940691775078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Flynn ◽  
Lauren Albrecht ◽  
Shannon D. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Focus Group Data ◽  
Qualitative Focus Groups

This article discusses four challenges to conducting qualitative focus groups: (1) maximizing research budgets through innovative methodological approaches, (2) recruiting health-care professionals for qualitative health research, (3) conducting focus groups with health-care professionals across geographically dispersed areas, and (4) taking into consideration data richness when using different focus group data collection methods. In light of these challenges, we propose two alternative approaches for collecting focus group data: (a) extended period of quantitative data collection that facilitated relationship building in the sites prior to qualitative focus groups and (b) focus groups by videoconference. We share our experiences on employing both of these approaches in two national research programs.

Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Qualitative Health Research: Opportunities, Concerns, and Recommendations

2021 ◽  
pp. 104973232110611
Author(s):  
Jill Owczarzak ◽  
Katherine C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Important Change ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Ethical Oversight

In January 2019, revisions to federal regulations that outline requirements for ethical oversight of human subjects research (The Revised Common Rule) went into effect. These revisions reflect major changes in thinking about risk and protection of research subjects. The Revised Common Rule (RCR) considerably curtails federal oversight of social and behavioral science, with most non-interventional research and “benign” behavioral interventions becoming exempt from mandated Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, although determination of exemption remains with IRBs. As two qualitative health researchers serving on IRBs, we consider how this contraction of federal oversight dovetails with longstanding criticisms of IRB oversight of qualitative research. We explore the passage of the RCR as a point of potentially important change in procedure and principle in relation to ethical oversight of qualitative health research. We identify challenges and opportunities with these changes at the institutional, professional, and individual levels for ethical and impactful qualitative research.

Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Paterson ◽  
Sally Thorne ◽  
Connie Canam ◽  
Carol Jillings
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Qualitative Health Research
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document