Designing Data Generation and Management
Strategies
C H A P T E R
3
“I
nquiry is . . . a dialogical process. It is a dialogue with the participants, the data [themselves], the events surrounding the research process, and the investigators as introspective individuals or as interacting team members”(Hall, 2003, p. 494). Therefore, to implement a high-quality qualitative re- search study, a researcher must make sure that the research question is clear, that the method selected to answer the question is appropriate, and that the people and data sources needed are available. Once this has been achieved, the researcher will then begin collecting data. Once data are collected, they must be analyzed and synthesized; conclusions will need to be drawn and practice implications stated. This chapter explores the strategies for collect- ing and managing data. General concepts of qualitative research are offered.
The specifics of data generation and management to be used for particular qualitative approaches are offered in the chapter that follows.
common data collection techniques. Each researcher will need to deter- mine, based on the question asked, the research approach selected, the sen- sitivity of the subject matter, and available resources, which methods of data generation are most appropriate. For example, if the researcher is interested in investigating the experiences of comfort for clients living in a nursing home, those who agree to be interviewed may be more willing to speak in a focus group than face-to-face. As the researcher, you will need to carefully assess the research goals and then match those with the best data collection strategy.
Conducting Interviews
Before entering the field to conduct interviews, researchers have to be open to their influence on the inquiry. An important term to be aware of in dis- cussion of the researcher’s role in qualitative inquiry is reflexivity. According to Carolan (2003), “reflexivity is a term that is widely used, with a diverse range of connotations, and sometimes with virtually no meaning at all”
(p. 8). For the purpose of this chapter, reflexivity is defined as the responsi- bility of researchers to examine their influence in all aspects of qualitative inquiry—self-reflection. Primeau (2003) states, “reflexivity enhances the quality of research through its ability to extend our understanding of how our positions and interests as researchers affect all stages of the research process” (p. 9). The researcher’s position is never fixed, it is an ongoing process of self-critique and self-appraisal (Koch, 2006). “Reflecting on the process of one’s research and trying to understand how one’s own values and views may influence the findings adds credibility to the research and should be part of any method of qualitative inquiry” (Jootun, McGhee, &
Marland, 2009, p. 42). Once researchers are aware of the influence their ideas may have on interpretation of the findings, they can develop a mech- anism to maintain a self-reflective stance. This awareness readies them to enter the field and collect data.
One of the most frequently used data collection strategies is the open- ended interview. According to experts in the field, it is the gold standard.
Ryan, Coughlan, and Cronin (2009) describe three types of interviews; two of these are more appropriate for qualitative research than the third. The standardized interview (or structured) is mostly used in quantitative stud- ies. It contains a preset list of questions that each research subject will be asked. The second is the semistandard (or semistructured) interview that is more flexible. Although there are guide questions, the opportunity for story telling is inherent in the format. The unstandarized (or unstructured) inter- view uses one or more lead questions. There is limited structure in this type of interview. Robinson (2000) states “the formal qualitative interview is an unstructured conversation with a purpose that usually features audiotape and verbatim transcription of data, and use of an interview guide rather than a rigid schedule of questions” (p. 18). According to Bianco and Carr-Chellman
(2002), “interviews range in type and length and are used for different pur- poses but are present in virtually all qualitative traditions” (p. 254). It is in- creasingly popular to conduct qualitative interviews through telephone, discussion boards, or e-mail.
For interviews to be successful, they must be interdependent by nature.
Accessing closely held information will only occur if there is mutual trust and respect between researcher and informant (Perry, Thurston, & Green, 2004). When preparing to enter into the interview, the researcher must be cognizant of the fact that the outcome of the interview is an understanding of the meaning of the experience for those who are part of it. Hence, “mean- ing is not ‘just the facts’ but rather the understandings one has that are spe- cific to the individual (what was said) yet transcendent of the specific (what is the relationship between what was said, how it was said, what the listener was attempting to ask or hear, what the speaker was attempting to convey or say)” (Dilley, 2004, p. 128). Essential to the interview process is the impor- tance of committing oneself to fully engage in it. Interviews should not be conducted without adequate preparation and understanding of the process, its intent, and the desired outcome. In addition, Lambert and Loiselle (2008) offer some caution with regard to use of interviews, “the assumption that words are accurate indicators of participants’ inner experiences’ may be problematic” (p. 229). Interviewees may choose only to disclose what they think is socially acceptable. Some of the ways to reduce the effect of obtain- ing socially acceptable answers is through building trusting relationships, triangulating, and saturating data.
Before entering the field to conduct an interview, it is important for the researcher to consider the social and cultural context in which data will be collected (McDougall, 2000). Interviewers come with histories and cultural value systems; on many levels, the cultural and social expectations of both individuals—interviewer and interviewee—will affect what is said and what is heard. At the extreme, “differences in age, social class, race, and ethnicity between the interviewer and interviewee may inhibit rapport” (p. 722). To facilitate dialogue during data collection, the researcher needs to be aware of cultural differences and work to reduce their impact as much as possible.
One of the ways suggested earlier in this text is to use the researcher’s jour- nal as a place to chronicle feelings, attitudes, and values relative to the inter- view process and those who will be interviewed. Another suggestion is to take the time to build rapport with those from whom you will be solicit - ing information. Whiting (2008) suggests that there are four phases to the interview process: apprehension, exploration, cooperative, and participation phases. Each one being very important to a complete interview. In the process of building a relationship, the researcher can assure the informants that their confidentiality will be protected.
Open-ended interviews provide participants with the opportunity to fully describe their experience. Interviews generally are conducted face-to- face. To facilitate sharing by the research participants, it is a good practice to
conduct the interview in a place and at a time that is most comfortable and convenient for the participants. The more comfortable each participant is, the more likely he or she will share important information.
The actual interviews can be brief with a specific objective, such as veri- fying previously reported information. Or interviewing can cover a longer period, either in one sitting or over a prolonged time. A life history is an ex- ample of data collection that may continue for a long time at each sitting and also over weeks, months, or even years.
As stated earlier, the structured interview is one in which researchers use a set of preselected questions that they wish to have answered. Structured in- terviews are more likely to occur in quantitative rather than qualitative re- search studies. An unstructured interviewprovides the opportunity for greater latitude in the answers provided. In the unstructured interview, the re- searcher asks open-ended questions, such as “What is it like to care for an abusive client? Can you describe your experience for me?” In this example, there is no defined response. Using these questions, the respondent is able to move about freely in his or her description of caring for an abusive client.
The unstructured interview is the preferred technique in a qualitative study.
When engaging in interviews, there are special population-specific con- cerns that you should be aware of. One in particular that has gained signifi- cant attention is age. Robinson (2000) and Docherty and Sandelowski (1999) have addressed interviewing the elderly and children. Robinson found in her work with institutionalized elderly that the interview had six distinct phases. These included (1) introducing; (2) personalizing; (3) rem- iniscing; (4) contextualizing; (5) closing; and (6) reciprocating. In describ- ing these phases, Robinson clearly states the relevance and importance of allowing the aged individual to lead the conversation. Although interviews may take longer with the elderly, the time for sharing is well worth the rich- ness of the data collected.
Docherty and Sandelowski (1999) offer advice on interviewing children.
Based on their review of the literature, researchers should be aware that “de- velopmental age, the target event under investigation, interview structure, multiple interviewers, and research design” (p. 183) are all factors requiring the interviewer’s attention. In addition, Docherty and Sandelowski raise the issue of attention span and recall, both of which may not be directly linked to developmental age.
There are also issues around cross-cultural interviewing. This is a com- plex issue that researchers need to take under consideration when selecting informants. In many cases, the native language of the interviewer and the in- terviewee may be different thus necessitating an interpreter. The use of inter- preters has received little attention in the research literature (Wallin &
Ahlstrom, 2006). Those interested in using interpreters for data collection should seek out strong mentors who have experience in this area.
Videoconferencing has also been used to conduct interviews. Sedgwick and Spiers (2009) used this medium to conduct personal interviews for a
focused ethnographic study whose informants were dispersed over 640,000 square kilometers in Canada. The researchers found this superior to tele- phone interviews because it provided the opportunity to pick up visual cues.
Regardless of the data collection strategies used, researchers need to gain access to participants. Access is an extremely important consideration when designing data collection strategies. When interviewing is the major way the researcher will collect data, it is important to determine how he or she will achieve access. The way in which researchers present themselves to prospec- tive study participants will affect the level and type of participation pro- vided. Sixsmith, Boneham, and Goldring (2003) suggest specific strategies for large-scale studies that may assist with access. These include (1) stake- holder analysis; (2) identification of gatekeepers; (3) snowballing; (4) ad- vertising; (5) dispersing questionnaires in public areas that can be used by the subjects to contact researchers for interviews; (6) street interviews; and (7) the ethnographic technique of “being there.”
There is a growing body of information regarding the therapeutic nature of qualitative interviews for research participants. The opportunity to give voice to an experience is a validating experience for some. The value of being heard is empowering. However, there are some experiences that are difficult to share and once shared stir up a plethora of feelings. This is particularly true for vulnerable populations. Nurse researchers, because of their educa- tion and training, sometimes struggle with when to be the researcher and when to be the nurse. Like many of the topics offered in this section on in- terviewing, this is yet another area the researcher needs to explore before en- tering the setting to conduct the interviews. Drury, Francis, and Chapman (2007) suggest that before engaging vulnerable populations, nurses would be well served to be skilled in using an ethical decision-making model to de- termine when to remain the researcher and when therapeutic intervention is required.
Establishing rapport once on the scene is achieved by conveying a sense of interest and concern for the research informant. The research participant must trust the researcher before he or she will feel comfortable revealing in- formation.
Using Focus Groups
Using focus groups for data collection is another valuable strategy for qual- itative researchers. A focus groupis “a particular form of group interview in- tended to exploit group dynamics” (Freeman, 2006, p. 491). They are aimed at “promoting self-disclosure among participants, by explicitly capitalizing on group dynamics in discussions” (p. 492). Although focus groups as a method of data collection did not arise from a qualitative tradition, they have been found to be most useful in a number of settings, but most impor- tantly when dealing with sensitive topics. Focus groups are particularly suited to the collection of qualitative data because they have the advantages
of being inexpensive, flexible, stimulating, cumulative, elaborative, assistive in information recall, and capable of producing rich data (Fontana & Frey, 1994; MacDougall & Baum, 1997). The major disadvantage of focus groups is groupthink, a process that occurs when stronger members of a group or segments of the group have major control or influence over the verbaliza- tions of other group members (Carey & Smith, 1994). Generally, a good group leader can overcome the tendency of groupthinkif he or she is atten- tive to its potential throughout data collection. The advantages of a focus group as a data collection strategy outweigh the disadvantages.
Stewart, Shamdasani, and Rook (2007) identify seven common uses of focus groups: collecting background information on a particular topic; gen- erating research hypotheses that can be tested in larger studies; stimulating new ideas and concepts; identifying problems or collecting information about products or services; generating information for instrument develop- ment; and assisting with interpretation of previously collected qualitative data. Most of these reflect the use of focus groups in nursing research. What this data collection strategy accomplishes is it provides a forum for mem- bers of the group to explore a topic with each other (Redmond & Curtis, 2009). In nursing, focus groups have been used to explore a range of topics in clinical, education, and management areas. They have also been used to collect perspectives on patients and caregivers (Webb & Doman, 2008).
Curtis and Redmond (2007) believe that they are not appropriate for use when the purpose of the research is to generalize findings. Further, they are generally not suitable in situations where hierarchical relationships exist (Krueger & Casey, 2007).
Focus groups have been used to collect information on a variety of top- ics. They are thought to be most useful when the topic of inquiry is consid- ered sensitive. Although the use of focus groups for sensitive topic inquiry is well documented, its overall popularity as a qualitative research data collec- tion strategy is increasing based on many of the advantages cited earlier.
Moloney, Dietrich, Strickland, and Myerburg (2003) recommend virtual focus groups, which use computer-mediated communications such as e- mail. Moloney and colleagues differentiate virtual focus groups into two types: discussion boards and chat rooms. Discussion boards refer to “an on- going site where participants are free to log on at any time, read others’ post- ings, and post their own thoughts” (p. 275). Chat rooms refer to “a discussion site that functions in real time, where participants log on at a spe- cific time and converse back and forth . . . instant messenger is a type of a chat room” (p. 275). Researchers should exercise caution, however, when using e-mail as an information exchange medium because anonymity can be compromised. (See Chapter 4 for an expanded discussion of the ethical issues relevant to data collected through the Internet.) If the internet is being considered as the medium for a focus group, the researcher must care- fully weigh the complex issues that arise when working in cyberspace.
As stated, there are important considerations before you choose focus group as a data collection strategy. A good focus group session has the po- tential for learning about both the focus and the group (Kidd & Parshall, 2000). To do so, the group facilitator must have a solid understanding of group process (Joseph, Griffin, & Sullivan, 2000) and should collect data with at least one other researcher/facilitator (Kidd & Parshall, 2000).
Hudson (2003) offers three distinct segments of focus groups: introducing the group, conducting the group, and closing the group. Those planning to use focus groups should be well versed in what each part requires.
In addition, when deciding who should attend a focus group, the re- searcher must be certain that the people invited to participate “have a shared trait or experience on which the discussion can build” (Lucasey, 2000).
Group size should be between 6 and 10 members. Larger group size may preclude everyone from having a chance to speak. Smaller group size may make group members feel as though they cannot speak freely or have to speak when they have nothing to offer.
Recording of focus group data can be problematic and is another area that should be seriously considered before the decision is made to use this strategy for data collection. A number of authors address the complexity of transcribing recorded data when the data are being generated during a focus group. Location of the microphone, intonation, participants talking at the same time, and mechanical difficulties can all preclude complete and accurate data transcription. Fernandez and Griffiths (2007) suggest the use of portable MP3 players to enhance audio recording. The clarity, usability, and storage capabilities surpass conventional tape recorders. Joseph et al.
(2000) advocate the use of videotaping as a method of data documenta- tion during focus group activity. Videotaping has proved successful partic- ularly with children’s focus groups (Kennedy, Kools, & Krueger, 2001).
Videotaping has the advantage of providing a complete recording of an in- dividual’s statement, group interaction, and individual behavior; however, it also can be viewed as intrusive and a violation of privacy. Researchers in- terested in using videotaping will need to consider the positives and nega- tives of its use.
When videotaping is not possible, Halcomb et al. (2007) recommend two experienced researchers be present at each session. One person who will lead or facilitate the session and a second who will assume the role of note- taker. These authors point out that the note-taker is invaluable in recording nonverbal communication that is lost in audiotaping.
More recently, attention has been directed at the reliability and validity of focus group data. Kidd and Parshall (2000) state that there are three cri- teria of reliability: stability, equivalence, and internal consistency. Stability refers to the consistency of issues over time. Stability becomes an important issue when group membership changes from one meeting of the group to the next.
Equivalenceis a term used to describe the consistency of the moderators or coders of the focus group (Kidd & Parshall, 2000). It is essential that, to the extent possible, the same moderator lead the discussion with one group and across groups and that one researcher play a predominant role in analy- sis. Internal consistencyof coding relates to the importance of having one team member assume the major responsibility for conducting the analysis, participating in as many groups and debriefings as possible, and communi- cating regularly with other team members as the analysis proceeds (Kidd &
Parshall, 2000, p. 302).
Validity is used by Kidd and Parshall (2000) to describe a form of con- tent validity. In other words, how convinced is the researcher that what the participants have shared is valid information? Paying careful attention to the composition of the group and interviews across groups with similar ex- periences are two ways to attend to validity of the data when using focus groups.
“The history of focus groups suggests that they were not originally con- ceived as a stand-alone method” (Kidd & Parshall, 2000). Therefore, to enhance the findings of a study that uses focus groups, the researcher should be prepared to consider using data triangulation. (For a full description of data triangulation, the reader is referred to Chapter 15.) Although not specifically related to validity, Traulsen, Almarsdottir, and Bjornsdottir (2004) have suggested interviewing the focus group modera- tor as a method to add “a new and valuable dimension to group inter- view” (p. 714). The purposes of interviewing the moderator include (1) offering information about group interaction and behavior; (2) effec- tively providing feedback on the research; (3) serving as an additional data point for the final analysis; and (4) adding to the richness of the data specifically about activity/conversation that occurs when the tape or video recorder is not running (Traulsen et al., 2004). The opportunity for other members of the research team to interview the moderator has important potential in adding to the study.
Using Written Narratives
Written responses by qualitative research participants are not new as a data collection strategy. Many researchers prefer written narratives to the spoken word because such narratives permit participants to think about what they wish to share. In addition, written narratives reduce costs by eliminating transcription requirements for audiotape interviews. The disadvantage of written narratives is the lack of spontaneity in responses that may occur. The popularity of the written narrative suggests it has proved an effective means of collecting qualitative research data.
In using written narratives, it becomes extremely important to be clear about what it is that researchers wish the participants to write about. Because the researcher often is not present during the actual writing, it is essential