Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
qual research method
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| epistemology/epistemological position | - branch of philos = TOK - how and what can we know? - posish = must be clear of rsrch objecives, clear what pos to find out |
| hypothetico-deductive | - basis of mainstream experimental psych research - deriving hypotheses + testing them |
| little q | - incorp of nonnumerical dat collec tech into hypothetico-deductive - gen dat = incrop into predefined hyps/cats (test hyps, create caats) - facil stat anal |
| big Q | - expansh of lil q - open-ended, partip lead, bottom up methods - concerned w theory gen + exploration of meanings - resrch subjects contrip dat, researchers job = interp in real world context |
| realism | - researcher = detective - aims to = discover/uncover reality - world is = intelligible + rule bound |
| realist knowledge | Reflects real world truthfully independently of researcher/participants views |
| realist knowledge assumptions | - certain processes underlie partips behav/think, can be id'd and conveyed by resrchs - relies on valid + reliable know abt social/psych phenom - world (material, sosh, psych) can be understood, resrsh must be skilled enuf to find structs which charac i |
| phenomenology | - Researcher = counsellor - Aims to = disover uncover experience (via partip) - World is = experientially diverse |
| phenomenology knowledge | - what is world like for this partip? - prod know abt subjective exp of partips (not patterns that underpin/shape exp) - captch smthn that exists in world (partips thoughts, feelings, percepts, exps) |
| social constructionism | - Researcher = architect - Aim = deconstruct - World is = socially constructed |
| social constructionism knowledge | -sceptical posish twrds know - not what happening or how smthn experienced, rather how ppl talk abt owrld, construct versions of real thru lang use |
| social constructionism knowledge assumptions | - knw construc thru sosh interacs - meanings = collect + collaboratively agreed w other - ideas = construct within human soc, no exist wo ppl who valid + lang used - social groups = can choose to replace old conventshes w new |
| qualitative dat collec | - interview - focus group - diaries - archives - web based - often = mixed methods |
| interview | - convo w purpose - struct/semi/unstruct - sampling app (why wnat hear from cert ppl) - interview sched - ethical issues = recorded, transcription verbatim - reflexivity |
| interview advantages | - allows reconstruction of events - more detailed dat (intvw expert) - allows longitudinal - specific focus - easy to transcribe |
| interview disadvantages | - less naturalistc (partips giving full account?) - certain interacts can be ignored (body lang, tone) - time consuming - agenda of interviewer/e (loaded q's, answering based on presh/expectations) - overused |
| focus groups | - recorded group interview - sev paprtips (6-10) + moderator - in person vs online - study interact btwn group membs (format influence) - how are ops expressed + modified thru group discush (argum, presentation, dom figs, adopt/adaption of ideas) |
| focus group advantages | - more naturalistic (social construct, group forget watched) - collective sense making (forming ideas togeth, learn/lead) - empowering (gives group voice) - efficient |
| focus group disadvantages | - researhcer = less ctrl - tendecy for more agreement than dis (deps on group selected) - potensh for partip discomf (what being discussed, how - feel threatened/not want to challenged certain individ or idea) - more diff to transcribe |
| Diaries | - record exps over period of time - clear instructions + completed at specifc intervals or in response to events |
| Diaries advantages | - events as they happen - personal account |
| Diaries disadvantages | -true reflection? partips being honest? - varied completion/info btwn partips - drop out rates |
| Web based data | - Groups analysed thru web - Collect dat from blogs, social media accnts/groups -Provide large amnts of dat (advan/disadvan or intimidating) |
| Web based data advantages | - anonymous (often automatically, ethically must be anon if web based) - volume of dat |
| Web based data disadvantages | - unrepresentative sample (not all have internet access, groups used can be assumptive) - trustworthiness (now verify accounts, posts online reflective honest account?) - consent (is post = consent?) |
| archival data | - media + text sources - "rustic" |
| archival data advantages | - data collec + transcription (all done already) - less researchers bias (given narrative already, pick thru biases of publishers) - wide variety of sources |
| archival data disadvantages | - spec research q (narrow focus in order to examine) - long process of understanding data |
| researcher reflexivity | - examine own posish/feels/motivs + how infl interps of dat - where place self on topic - what assumps/values/exps base own thinking on + how connec to self/identities/comms part of |
| thematic analysis | - Braun + clarke 2006 - (theoretically) flexible app (realist, phenom, constructivist) - not atheoretical - underpins grounded theory + others - concep coherence (diff elemnts of research design = in alignment) - reflexive |
| thematic anal orientation to dat | inductive = anal driven by dat deductive = anal shaped by existing theoretical constructs |
| thematic anal Focus of meaning | semantic = surface lvl, explicity meanings, what did thet say + what does it mean latent = underlying or implicit meanings, idiomatic/generational phrases, meanings in diff contexts |
| thematic anal Qualitative framework | experiential = ppl perceps and unds of world around them critical = interrogating/unpacking meaning arnd topic, und bckgrnds of what said (what did you mean by that?) |
| thematic anal Theoretical framework | realist = fact based, empirical know, truth, cap truth + realtiy as expressed in dat set phenomenological + constructivist = interrogate + unpack realities expressed within dat |
| 6 phases of thematic anal | 1. familiarisation of dat 2. identifying initial codes 3. sorting codes into initial themes 4. refining potential themes 5. defining/naming themes 6. writing up to report findings |
| thematic anal - familiarisation | - reread + take notes, what interesting |
| thematic anal - identifying intial codes | - refining what said, understand what is said/implied - interesting points of dat - framework |
| thematic anal - sorting codes into initial themes | - themes from what said |
| thematic anal - refining potensh themes | - work out how various resp connect ot themes |
| thematic anal - defining/naming themes | - summarise essence of theme - select illustrative quotes - write narr abt content + meaning of dat - how anlal answer rq |
| grounded theory | - Glaser + Strauss 1967 - bottom up app to und sosh processes - how others exp + inform und of lived world - inductive - obtain theory from dat - not biased to predef theory/preconceps of researcher |
| process + principles of grounded theory | - line by line anal dat = earlier code or assigned to new one - constant comp anal (sims and diffs btwn emerging cats) - coding (cats id'd) - cat grouping occurs sharing characs or feats) - satur (cont samp + cod = no new ones) - end prd = thry |
| transcription | - orthographic = what said + who (prtl wrds + haha) - jeffersonian = what said + how (semantic, loudness, pause, sighs etc) - inclusion of nonwords + overlapping sp - pseudonyms = anon - software helpful, not perf |
| IPA | - Interpretative phenomenological analysis - Understanding individuals lived exps and how they make sense of them |
| Basis of IPA | - ppl = self-interp beings - interp activ = sense making, human nat, cent to human exp + act - cen concern = how make sense of exps (phenomenology) - interpretative = und ppl have interp + us, active interp role |
| Diff approaches within IPA | - hermeneutic/sense making - lived exp - idiographic (focus on recog of uniqueness, subjective exp) |
| Basic princips of IPA | - inductive (dat driven, bott up) - reject hyps in fav of open ended q - idiographic = work at individ lvl - assum agency of individ (indiv activ interp their exps + world, interp informs dat receive) - person to person exp |
| research questions in IPA | - Open ended = gain rich + detailed descrips - Focus = signif issues ongiong/at certain juncture at life |
| Sampling + dat collec of IPA | - Small sample sizes = case by case - Deps on ○ Richness of individ cases ○ How want to comp cont cases ○ Pragmatic restrictions working under |
| IPA analysis | - Identify theme in first case ○ Iden themes on case by case basis ○ Read + reread - Theme cluster ○ Look for connects ○ Cluster themes into superordinate ○Table of master themes |
| Discourse Analysis | - Potter + Wetherell 1987 - Written + spoken lang - Within a sosh context/Social constructionist - How smthn commd, not just what (Irony, sarcams, dom figs) - Less concerned abt themes from narr, more abt how ppl interact w each other |
| DA analysis | - Listening/reading - Coding - Analysis ○ Atten to constructive + functional dimenshes of discourse ○ How discourse put together ○ How does what is said/done have a function in discourse itself |
| Ethics | - Philosoph study of moral right + wrong - System of accepted beliefs abt moral right +wrong, values to guide behav - British Psych Soc (BPS) = code of ethics + conduct, code of human research ethics |
| BPS primary ethical princips | - Respect - Competence - Responsibility - Integrity |
| Respect | - Value dignity + worth of all persons - Respect for privacy (qual methods can be intrusive, trust in researcher) |
| Competence | - Maintain standards + work within own limits |
| Responsibility | - To individs, general public + profession (avoidance of harm) |
| Integrity | Honesty, accuracy + fairness |
| BPS human research ethics | - Respect for autonomy, priv, dignity of individs/groups/comms - Scientific integrity (objective, truth seeking) - Social responsibility - Max benefit, minimise harm |
| Yardley's 2008 core princips for eval valid of qual research | 1. Sens to context 2. Commitment + rigour 3. Coherence + transparency 4. Impact + importance |
| Sensitivity to context | - Is anal/interp sens to dat, sosh context, + relashes from which emerged? - nature of researchers involvement (prolonged engage, immers in dat) - research consid how may spec have infl partips actions (reflexivity) |
| Commitment and rigour | - carry out anal w suffish breadth/depth to deliv addish insight into topic - commitment to rigourous use of spec technique of qual anal (IPA, grounded theory etc) - anal + design permit researcher to get answers in suffish depth |
| Coherence and transparency | - coher acrss rq, philos perspec, method + anal app? - transpar + suffish detail in auth acc of methods used + anal/interp choices - every aspect of data collec proc + app to coding/anal discussed - pres excerpts from dat = readers discern patterns |
| Impact and importance | - so what - study has impact if = build on what alrdy knwn so can take 1 stage further - look at issues of interest to ppl + soci in gen |
| reflexivity in qual research | - constant updating of own posish, process - refecting on posish of sosh priv/margin (race, gend, class, disab, sexual or) - researcher = power, ctrl. respons to reflect on how engage w pwr (rep partips, interp result, q's asked) - reflex diary |
| oprn science | - eg: UK dat service - routine prep + sharing of research sat in publicly avail repositories |
| open science advantages | - transparency - efficient - sustainable - precents rep or overburdening vulnerable groups |
| open science disadvantages | - no scope to build rapport - dont know how researcher came to concs - issues of confidentiality, informed consent, preparing dat - suitability of their rq to yours |
Created by:
melissa.sjolin