Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Comparison between qualitative and quantitative data: Qualitative Data: gathered in words, sounds body language etc data is very rich data is open to interpretation can be used to generate a theory or test one Quantitative Data: measured data in the form of numbers analysed statistically  Assume you can generalize findings beyond the sample you test

Qualitative Research: unstructured interviews observations case studies Content analysis

G generalisability - can we take the information and say that everybody will behave in the same way?R reliability - if i repeat the experiment, do I get consistent or the same results?A applications - is this information useful in the real world?V validity - is the test measuring what it claims to measure? Or are there other things that have caused the result?E ethics - a set of guidelines about what is moral/right/acceptable for research.

Experimental Method: Experimental hypothesis - a statement that predicts that the treatment will cause an effect. The experimental hypothesis will always be phrased as a cause-and-effect statement. The null hypothesis - a hypothesis that the experimental treatment will have no effect on the participants or dependent variables. It is important to note that failing to find an effect of the treatment does not mean that there is no effect. The treatment might impact another variable that the researchers are not measuring in the current experiment. The independent variable - the treatment variable that is manipulated by the experimenter. The dependent variable - the response that the experimenter is measuring.

Strengths of the qualitative approach: rich data - detailed description of individual experiences useful for investigating sensitive issues - homelessness, sexuality, abused children, victims of war, deformities generate new ideas and theories to explain and overcome problems after you have conducted the research

Limitations of the qualitative approach: can be very time consuming to analyse transcribing interviews/videos data analysis can be difficult because there is so much data without any clear strategy for analysis interpretation of data may be subjective

Ethical considerations in qualitative research: informed consent protection anonymity confidentiality

Sampling techniques appropriate to qualitative research: Sampling methods fall into two broad types: Probability type (quantitative) can be representative the idea is to test a sample and generalise the findings Non-probability type (qualitative) individuals are chosen because of their characteristics

Sampling techniques:Purposive - target at a specific group of people with purpose. Useful for urgent situations where time is a factor. If the target group is rare then purposive sampling may be the only method. It is criticised for creating bias samples.Snowball - Ask the pps if they know anybody else who would participate in the research. Rare individuals tend to have contact with others who have similar characteristics. Very easy, does not consume researcher's time or resources.Convenience (opportunity) - Use whoever is available. 

The effects of pps expectations and researcher bias in qualitative research: Participant expectations - can be described as participant factors that influence the outcome of the research. Researcher bias - can be described as researcher factors such as researchers beliefs of values that could potentially bias the research process. Potential effects of participant expectations: Pps ideas of the research could lead them to behave in ways that are not natural in order to please the researcher or because they have an idea of getting advantages from participating. Pps may not agree with the researcher's interpretation of the data if it is presented to them. Pps in qualitative research bring individual perceptions, or ideas that influence the research process and results. Pps may behave in ways that they feel is expected of them (socially desirable) or they may conform to other pps ideas because they want to be accepted or not appear as different. Pps try to be consistent in their answers and sometimes a previous statement influences a later one. This means that some must be untrue. The researchers should not uncritically believe everything the pps say but rather cross-check for credibility. Potential effects of researcher bias: The researcher's own ideas, beliefs, values, and attitudes may bias the research process and the outcome so that the results are a reflection of the researcher's subjective expectations rather than a reflection of the pps ideas.

Ethical Issues and how to deal with them:Informed Consent: Pps must understand what the study will involve and they must agree to participate. Participation is voluntary. participants should be able to understand the information given before. during, and after the study. An ethics committee must give permission if informed consent cannot be obtained because of the nature of the research.In covert pps observations, the researcher should carefully consider whether the data from the research is so important that the study is justified - especially if the research could be dangerous for the researcher or some of the pps.

Protect pps from harm: Consider whether the research could potentially harm the pps in any way. Questions should be clear and direct if the topic is sensitive. Consider whether in the interview or observation will cause signs of distress or discomfort in the pps. Protect oos from the consequences of participation. Follow-up  on research to ensure pps well-being.

Anonymity and Confidentiality: Full anonymity is the rule, but in cases where this is not possible the pps should be fully informed. Research material should be destroyed and transcripts anonymised after use.

Potential Exploitation of pps: The researcher could use reflexivity and consult other researchers when researching socially or psychologically vulnerable people who are not able to protect themselves. The researcher must seriously consider whether findings based on deception and covert observations in research on sensitive issues can be justified. The degree to which 'invasion of privacy' is acceptable should be critically evaluated and the study abandoned in some cases.

Participant expectations and researcher bias:We bring to a social situation, a set of expectations.These expectations can effect the trustworthiness/reliability of the information taken in interviews.Social desirability, brings about the idea that we will use these expectations to change what we say to the researcher in order to give them the response that we think they want to hear.However the findings are not worthless, if we are researching a 'non-sensitive' issue.Reflexivity - To reflect and think critically.Humans do not respond passively to participating in research.Participant expectations (reactivity) can influence the 'trustworthiness' of data.Participants might be guessing what the research is about.Demand characteristics - change behavior to what is expected.Might unconsciously try to please the researcher.Social desirability problems (interviews).May compromise the integrity of the data.Hawthorn Effect:In overt observation studies pps know they are being watched.They have certain expectations.As a result they change their behavior (in some ways).Researchers beliefs and attitudes effect the research process.Can effect the interpretation of the research.Remember qualitative data is subjective and open to interpretation.Since the goal of qualitative research is to gain an understanding of pps social processes the researcher must priorities the pps beliefs and perceptions over his/her own.Could be conformation bias with results - due to ignoring contradictory evidence.Is qualitative research credible? Can it be taken seriously?

The importance of credibility in qualitative research:Credibility is qualitative research is analogous to internal validity in quantitative research.Trustworthiness of research depends on whether data reflects attitude/opinions/perceptions of pps (not researchers).Some argue that quantitative principles should be applied to qualitative research (internal/external validity/objectivity).Then qualitative research is invalid and lacks credibility.Others argue that qualitative research is a different paradigm and therefore not subject to the same treatment as quantitative.Credibility and validity can be reinterpreted as trustworthiness for the purposes of qualitative research.Trustworthiness may be more applicable to qualitative research because of the very nature of qualitative research.Researchers must document their methods and findings meticulously, so that others can examine them and see why they interpreted the results the way that they did.There is no objective criteria for testing trustworthiness.Can be considered trustworthy if the reader considers it trustworthy (Rolfe 2006).Peer review is the best (only) method to verify trustworthiness.Using triangulation to improve trustworthiness:Triangulation means approaching the question using different perspectives.Method triangulation: Use qualitative and quantitative methods and compare results (hope for convergence - results agree).Data triangulation: Compare different sources (observations/interviews) or participants (Cocaine and Heroine addicts).Researcher triangulation: Use several observers or interviewers. Compare collection and interpretation of data.Theory triangulation: Look at the data from different theoretical perspectives. Triangulation can improve trustworthiness because a variety of perspectives are used to look at the research process.Can help confirm conclusions drawn from other perspectives.But no set way to find absolute truth so shouldn't worry too much about trustworthiness (Hammersley 1992).Cannot create objective criteria for trustworthiness and because we are dealing with data that is subjective (can be interpreted differently).Using Reflexivity to improve trustworthiness:Reflexivity is being aware of how your beliefs/attitudes can affect the interpretation of data.Reflect upon how your bias' might affect the interpretation of the data.Being reflexive can reduce bias and increase the trustworthiness of the data.Personal refexivity: How researchers beliefs/attitudes have influenced research. How doing the research has influenced the researcher.Epistomological reflexivity: Relates to how knowledge has been created in the study. Have our methods limited possible findings? Has the design or way the data was analysed influenced results? Could there be other designs or ways of analysing the data?Some researchers think reflexivity is important, others don't.

What is reflexivity?Reflexivity requires an awareness of the researchers contribution to the construction of meanings throughout the research process, and an acknowledgment of the impossibility of remaining 'outside of' one's subject matter while constructing research. Reflexivity then urges us 'to explore the ways in which a researcher's involvement with a particular study influences, acts upn and informs such research'.Qualitative research requires reflexivity on the part of the researcher. By this it means that as a researcher, you need to reflect on the nature of your involvement in the research process, and the way this shapes its outcomes. Reflexivity is required throughout the research process - for instance, in trying to be aware of how your own assumptions about the phenomenon under investigation might influence the way you formulate your research question, and the issues you highight in how you structure an interview.There are two types of reflexivity: personal reflexivity and epistemological reflexivity.Personal reflexivity: Involves reflecting upon the ways in which our own values, experiences, interests, beliefs, political commitments, wider aims in life and social identities have shaped the research. It also involves thinking about how the research may have affected and possibly changed us, as people and as researchers.Epistemological reflextivity: Requires us to engage with questions such as: How has teh research question defined and limited what can be 'found'? How has the design of the study and method of analysis 'constructed' the data and the findings? How could the research question have been investigated differently? To what extent would this have given rise to a different understanding of the phenomenon under investigation? Thus epistemological reflexivity encourages us to reflect upon the assumptions (about the world, about knowledge) that we have made int he course of the research, and it helps us to think about the implications of such assumptions for the research and its findings.The technique for quality checking describes above can all be seen as ways of encouraging reflexivity; they get you thinking about what it is you bring to the anaylsis. Comments from independent scrutinisers or respondents help you to reflect on the questions and assumptions you may be making; keeping an audit trail forces you to be explicit about the decisions you are making and to reflect upon how they led you on a course towards your findings and conclusions. However, although quality checks can help to bring reflexivity to the fore, you should not see it as something to be 'dealt with' only at set points int he analysis. Rather, throughout the process you need to pay attention to you own role in it.One of the strengths of reflexivity is that it encourages you to be explicit about the analytical decisions you make, and to ground them in the texts you are analysing - in the end, you always need to be able to show where is the data you developed a certain interpretation from. In this way it is an approach that facilitates reflexivity. It is therefore important to keep successive versions of your template, ideally with some commentary to remind you at the end of the study of the thinking behind the way you developed it.

Credibility:The credibility criteria involve establishing that the results of qualitative research are credible or believable from the perspective of the pps in the research. Since the purpose of qualitative research is to describe or understand the phenomenon of interest from the pps eyes, the pps are the only ones who can legitimately judge the credibility of the results.Transferability:Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings. From a qualitative perspective transferability  is primarily the responsibility of the one doing the generalizing. The qualitative researcher can enhance transferability by doing a thorough job of describing the research context and the assumptions that were central to the research. The person who wished to 'transfer' the results to a different context is then responsible for making the judgement of how sensible the transfer is.Dependability:The traditional quantitative view of reliability is based on the assumption of replicability  or repeatability. Essentially it is concerned with whether we should obtain the same results if we could observe the same thing twice. But we can't actually measure the same thing twice - by definition if we are measuring twice, we are measuring two different things. The idea of dependability, on the other hand, emphasizes the need for the research to account for the ever-changing context within which research occurs. The research is responsible for describing the changes that occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the study.

Focus Groups:Participants respond and comment on each others experiences.Can generate rich data.Does not discriminate against illiterate people.Everyone can participate (useful for cross-cultural research).Focus group members can be:Homogeneous - share key characteristics (e.g. all mums).Heterogeneous - do not share characteristics.Pre-existing - your psychology class.Concerned - an interest in the research (e.g. mums and violent video games).Naive - no interest in the research.Strengths:Quick/convenient way to gather data from multiple people at once.Natural setting so has higher ecological validity - people do sit around and discuss products. Talk about friends, girls/boys etc.Useful for providing insight into: What people think, why they think that way.Can uncover cultural values and group norms (evident in the way they talk).Limitations:Not appropriate for all research questions - sexual preferences, victims of abuse etc.People may feel uncomfortable revealing details - if group is homogeneous might feel uncomfortable revealing details.Conformity might affect what people say.Focus group might not be 'free' to participate which raises ethical concerns - nursing home, prisoners, psychiatric patients.

Interviews:Semi-structured interview:Most widely used method.Used to create lists of themes.Open ended questions.Closed questions.Informal conversation.Can be face to face.Over the phone.Supplemented with diaries.Strengths:For socially sensitive issues it can gather lots of data because the respondents can elaborate.Lass biased than researcher's preconceptions.Participant does most of the talking.researcher just guides through the themes.Benefits of flexible open ended questions.Participants can clarify and elaborate.Benefits of structured approach.Limitations:One to one approach is not ecologically valid.Remember we want to study people in their natural environment.Data analysis is time consuming - transcribing interviews, doing inductive content analysis.Quality of data can depend upon the skill of the interviewer.Interviewer can give out unconscious signals that can affect the participants answers.

Narrative interviews:Human beings are story tellers.Narratives are interpretations of an individuals reality.Can take several forms - Life story, general experience of a situation.Strengths:Helps explore the complexity of people's experiences in incredible detail.Helps explain how people construct meaning in their lives.Narrative interviews can be used with all people because literacy isn't required.Weaknesses:So much to analyse - imagine transcribing and analysing a persons life story!The uncontrollable expectations of the participant and interviewer prevents the narrative interview from being non-directional.It is difficult to gain a narrative which is not a strategic communication. The participant might try to defend themselves in a conflict, or put themselves in a positive light with regards to the event.The interviewer's informedness cannot always be hidden.The beginning of the narrative interview is difficult to standardize and relies totally on the social skills of the interviewer.

Ethical Perspectives:Utalitarian:A form of teleological ethics.The moral correctness of an action is determined by its consequences for society as a whole."The greatest good for the greatest number".Psychological researchers usually take the utalitarian view, but with certain absolute prohibitions.Dentological:The correctness of an actions lies in itself, not its consequences.E.g. lying is always wrong, even if it produces a good outcome.Teleological:The correctness of an action is determined by its intended consequences.E.g. lying is good if it is done for the 'right' reasons (like protecting a person from harm).

New Page