PRESENTING THE DATA

findings within the context of the dean’s influence over the college’s growth and development. The researcher might also look at the institution in terms of its politics. For instance, if the institution was a publicly funded entity in a state with representation whose primary agenda in the state was improving the health of the populace, then the college can be described based on the effect the politics had in its growth and development. There is no one way to tell the story. The researcher should consider carefully the emphasis of the report.

Deciding whose voice will be heard is a decision that needs careful con- sideration. Power structures frequently overshadow choice of research topic, data collection, sampling, and analysis. Often, researchers do not even con- sider how what they share is cloaked in power relationships. Although the researcher needs to stay attuned to the issues of power constantly, it is enor- mously important when telling the story. Whose voice will be heard and how it will be shared are extremely important. For example, if the researcher has studied the culture of a trauma unit in a major city for the purpose of sharing what life is like for the health professionals and clients who use the unit, the question should be asked, whose voice will be dominant and why?

If the researcher tells the story primarily from the health professionals’

points of view, is there a slant on the research report that is different than if it is told from the clients’ perspectives? Power is an important factor in research. It is a particularly important factor to consider in qualitative research, which has as one of its underlying principles the commitment to convey the experiences of those studied.

Sandelowski (1998b) offers the importance of metaphor and its use in reporting qualitative research. She shares that frequently when metaphor is used in research reports, it is used incorrectly or incompletely. Metaphor is a powerful tool in helping the reader to fully grasp what the researcher is try- ing to convey. Therefore, it needs to be selected carefully. Those who choose to use it must realize that it is only a tool or device to help the reader under- stand the data. It is a directional tool and not an outcome.

Finally, graphic medium can be used in data analysis. Hall (2003) speaks about the value of using graphic representations to enhance sharing the richness of data. Similarly, Hansen-Ketchum and Myrick (2008) have offered the value of photography in collection and analysis.

SUMMARY

D

ata analysis can be described as the heart of qualitative inquiry. It is the point in the research process when researchers have the opportunity to put into words their conceptualizations of the shared experiences. Through the dynamic processes of intuiting, synthesizing, analyzing, and conceptu- alizing, the researcher distills and then illuminates the experiences or cul- tures that have been part of the inquiry. Qualitative data analysis requires an openness to possibilities. It necessitates patience with abstraction and a willingness to discover the wholeness of what is shared. Qualitative data

analysis entails listening carefully to narrative and sharing description and understanding of what has been said, always maintaining the highest degree of integrity.

The focus of this chapter has been on data collection, management, and analysis. The novice qualitative researcher is advised to pursue a mentor to learn good techniques and to avoid the pitfalls of data collection, manage- ment, and analysis. Beck (2003) offers that the most common data analysis problem for neophytes is premature or delayed closure. For the advanced beginner, reading published studies with others and analyzing the data col- lection methods, data management strategies and reporting of the analysis will be helpful in further developing analysis skills. In this chapter, we have offered information on collecting data using interviews, observation, focus groups, chat rooms, and narratives. This information should be helpful in identifying the most appropriate way to collect data for your study. In the methodological chapters that follow, we offer specific information on data collection strategies that are most appropriate for the specific approach.

In the data management section, the information is focused primarily on computer programs that can help you analyze large amounts of data.

There is considerable debate about the usefulness of computer programs given the dynamic nature of the analysis process. It is important, however, that you have the information so that you can make an informed decision based on what you want to achieve. Finally, we offer information on the complexity of data analysis and how very difficult it is to fully describe a process that is creative and dynamic. It is our intention to offer a foundation from which to develop data analysis skills. The integrity of qualitative re- search findings will be judged on the ability of researchers to tell the story of participants with truthfulness and an attention to context and power.

References

Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1998). Ethnography and participant observation.

In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry(pp. 110–136).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bailey, P. H. (1996). Assuring quality in narrative analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research,18(2), 186–195.

Basit, T. N. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research,45(2), 143–154.

Beck, C. T. (2003). Initiation into qualitative data analysis. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(5), 231–234.

Bianco, M. B., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2002). Exploring qualitative methodologies in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 251–260.

Carey, M. A., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Capturing the group effect in focus groups: A special concern for analysis. Qualitative Health Research,4(1), 123–127.

Carolan, M. (2003). Reflexivity: A personal journey during data collection. Researcher, 10(3), 7–14.

Clark, C. M. (2008). Student voices on faculty incivility in nursing education: A conceptual model. Nursing Education Perspectives,29(5), 284–289.

Cutliffe, J. R. & McKenna, H. P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: The plot thickens. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2), 374–380.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods/

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curtis, E. A. & Redmond, R. (2007). Focus groups in nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 14(2), 25–37.

DeSantis, L., & Ugarriza, D. N. (2000). The concept of theme as used in qualitative research. Western Journal of Nursing Research,22(3), 351–377.

Dilley, P. (2004). Interviews and the philosophy of qualitative research. Journal of Higher Education,75(1), 127–132.

Docherty, S., & Sandelowski, M. (1999). Focus on qualitative methods: Interviewing children. Research in Nursing and Health Care,22, 177–185.

Drury, V., Francis, K., & Chapman, Y. (2007). Taming the rescuer: The therapeutic nature of qualitative research interviews. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 13, 383–384.

Eaves, Y. D., & Kahn, D. L. (2000). Coming to terms with perceived danger. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 18(1), 27–45.

Emden, C., & Sandelowski, M. (1999). The good, the bad and relative, part two:

Goodness and the criterion problem in qualitative research. International Journal of Professional Nursing Practice,5(1), 2–7.

Fernandez, R. & Griffiths, R. (2007). Portable MP3 players: Innovative devices for recording qualitative interviews. Nurse Researcher, 15(1), 7–15.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art and science. In N. K. Denzin,

& Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 361–376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freeman, T. (2006). ‘Best practice’ in focus group research: Making sense of different views. Journal of Advanced Research, 56(5), 491–497.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Greene, J. C. (1990). Three views on nature and role of knowledge in social science.

In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue(pp. 227–245). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Communication and Technology Journal,29, 75–92.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 105–117).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Halcomb, E. J., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J. & Davidson, P. M. (2007).

Literature review: Considerations in undertaking focus group research with cultur- ally and linguistically diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6), 1000–1011.

Hall, J. M. (2003). Analyzing women’s roles through graphic representation of nar- ratives. Western Journal of Nursing Research,25(5), 492–507.

Hansen-Ketchum, P. & Myrick, F. (2008). Photo methods for qualitative research in nursing: An ontological and epistemological perspective. Nursing Philosophy, 9, 205–213.

Hudson, P. (2003). Focus group interviews: A guide for palliative care researchers and clinicians. International Journal of Palliative Nursing,9(5), 202–207.

Jootun, D., McGhee, G. & Marland, G. R. (2009). Reflexity: Promoting rigour in qualitative research. Nursing Standard, 23(23), 42–46.

Joseph, D. H., Griffin, M., & Sullivan, E. D. (2000). Videotaped focus groups:

Transforming a therapeutic strategy into a research tool. Nursing Forum, 35(1), 15–20.

Kennedy, C., Kools, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). Methodological considerations in chil- dren’s focus groups. Nursing Research,50(3), 184–187.

Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000). Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research.Qualitative Health Research,10(3), 293–309.

Koch, T. (2006). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53,(1), 91–100.

Krasner, D. L. (2001). Qualitative research: A different paradigm—part 1. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society,28(2), 70–72.

Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2007). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3^rd ed.). London: Sage.

Lambert, S. D. & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(2), 228–237.

Lewins, A. (1996). The CAQDAS Networking Project: Multilevel support for the qualitative research community. Qualitative Health Research,6(2), 298–303.

Li, S. & Seale, C. (2007). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: An observational study of doctoral work. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1442–1452.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lucasey, B. (2000). Qualitative research and focus group methodology. Orthopedic Nursing,19(1), 53–55.

MacLean, L. M., Meyer, M., & Estable, A. (2004). Improving accuracy of transcripts in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,14(1), 113–123.

MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1997). The devil’s advocate: A strategy to avoid group- think and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research,7(4), 532–541.

Maggs-Rapport, F. (2000). Combining methodological approaches in research:

Ethnography and interpretive phenomenology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(1), 219–225.

McBrien, B. (2008). Evidence-based care: Enhancing the rigour of a qualitative study.

British Journal of Nursing, 17(20), 1286–1289.

McDougall, P. (2000). In-depth interviewing: The key issues of reliability and valid- ity. Community Practitioner,73(8), 722–724.

Moloney, J. F., Dietrich, A. S., Strickland, O. L., & Myerburg, S. (2003). Using Internet discussion boards as virtual focus groups. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(4), 274–286.

Morse, J. M. (1989). Strategies for sampling. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue(pp. 117–131). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Morse, J. M. (1994). Emerging from the data: The cognitive process of analysis in qualitative inquiry. In J.M. Morse (Ed.).Critical issues in qualitative research methods.

California: Sage.

Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: Notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306–313.

Nelson, A. M. (2008). Addressing the threat of evidence-based practice to qualitative inquiry through increasing attention to quality: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 316–322.

Pawson, R., Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Long, A., & Barnes, C. (2003). Types of quality of knowledge in social care. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Perry, C., Thurston, M., & Green, K. (2004). Involvement and detachment in researching sexuality: Reflections on the process of semistructured interviewing.

Qualitative Health Research,14(1), 135–148.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Primeau, L. A. (2003). Reflections on self in qualitative research: Stories of family.

American Journal of Occupational Therapy,57(1), 9–16.

Redmond, R., & Curtis, E. (2009). Focus groups: Principles and practice. Nurse Researcher, 16(3), 57–69.

Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 445–462).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Robinson, J. P. (2000). Phases of the qualitative research interview with institution- alized elderly individuals. Journal of Gerontological Nursing,26(11), 17–23.

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to-one interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309–314.

Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 27–37.

Sandelowski, M. (1998a). The call to experts in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health,21, 467–471.

Sandelowski, M. (1998b). Writing a good read: Strategies for re-presenting qualita- tive data. Research in Nursing and Health,21, 375–382.

Sedgwick, M., & Spiers, J. (2009). The use of videoconferencing as a medium for the qualitative interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 1–11.

Sharts-Hopko, N. (2002). Assessing rigor in qualitative research. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care,13(4), 84–86.

Sixsmith, J., Boneham, M., & Goldring, J. E. (2003). Accessing the community:

Gaining insider perspectives from the outside. Qualitative Health Research,13(4), 578–589.

Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing,3(3), 68–70.

Traulsen, J. M., Almarsdottir, A. B., & Bjornsdottir, I. (2004). Interviewing the mod- erator: An ancillary method to focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 714–725.

Walker, R., Cooke, M., & McAllister, M. (2008). A neophyte’s journey through qual- itative analysis using Morse’s cognitive processes of analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,7(1), 81–93.

Wallin, A., & Ahlstrom, G. (2006). Cross-cultural interview studies using inter- preters: Systematic literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(6), 723–735.

Webb, C., & Doman, M. (2008). Conducting focus groups: Experiences from nursing research. The Journal of Thematic Dialogue, 10, 51–60.

Whiting, L. S. (2008). Semi-structured interviews: Guidance for novice researchers.

Nursing Standard 22(23), 35–40.

Yonge, O., & Stewin, L. (1988). Reliability and validity: Misnomers for qualitative re- search. Canadian Journal of Nursing,20(2), 61–67.

Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research

C H A P T E R

4

E

thical issues related to professional nursing practice arise daily in the constant struggle to do good for the patient and to avoid harm. All that nurses do in the name of patient care is wrought with tension between these two principles. As science and technology provide avenues to inter- vene, unanticipated and more complex ethical dilemmas will continue to arise in our practice settings. The ethical dilemmas that emerge are grounded in the fact that direct relationships with human beings are at the heart of nurses’ work. Understanding ethical principles in theory, com- bined with life experience in practice, prepares the nurse to make sound ethical and moral decisions on a daily basis. This knowledge and experi- ence can be transferred to an understanding of ethical issues relevant to the research process.

Ethical issues and standards must be critically considered in both quan- titative and qualitative research. Nurse researchers have a professional responsibility to design research that upholds sound ethical principles and protects human rights. Ethical issues related to informed consent, participant–researcher relationships, gaining access, confidentiality, anonymity, sample size, and data analysis are addressed in this chapter. The ethical issues considered are relevant to each of the qualitative research approaches presented in the text and should be considered within the context of the method selected for a particular investigation. The protection of participants must remain at the forefront of all research studies; however, the nature of qualitative methods requires that the researcher remain alert to the possibil- ity of unanticipated ethical dilemmas.

There has been ongoing discussion in the nursing literature regarding the ethical variances that have arisen in qualitative investigations. Clearly, guidelines established for quantitative research investigations require an expanded scope of discussion when applied to qualitative research en- deavors (Cutliffe & Ramcharan, 2002; Demi & Warren, 1995; Forbat &

Henderson, 2003; Haggman-Laitila, 1999; Karnieli-Miller et al., 2009; Orb, Eisenhauer, & Wynaden, 2001; Robley, 1995). Standards for ethical con- duct in the qualitative realm will continue to require in-depth examina- tion. Although qualitative designs have improved guidelines regarding the unique concerns that emerge in this type of research, what has become in- creasingly clear is that the ethical aspects of the research process will always require ongoing critique and evaluation. Given this understanding, this chapter addresses ethical issues that require critical consideration in any qualitative research endeavor. Table 4-1 provides qualitative researchers with an “ethics checklist” to use as a guide when critiquing the ethical aspects of a research study.