kwaliteit onderzoek Flashcards Preview

kwalitatieve methoden 2019 > kwaliteit onderzoek > Flashcards

Flashcards in kwaliteit onderzoek Deck (16)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

credibiliteit

A

in staat om de complexiteit van de WH te vatten en om om te gaan met dat wat zich niet makkelijk laat uitleggen/verklaren?

is directly related to research design and
the researcher’s instruments and data.

meaningful inferences from instruments that measure what they intend to
measure

recursive research design process
methods en findings afhankelijk van elkaar

2
Q

Transfereerbaarheid

A

Kunnen inzichten toegepast/getransfereerd worden naar andere settings (zonder daarom in te boeten in contextspecifieke rijkheid)?

transferability is the way in which qualitative
studies can be applicable, or transferable, to broader contexts while still maintaining their context-specific richness.

“How can one
determine the degree to which the findings of an inquiry may have applicability in other contexts or with other respondents?

Methods : detailed descriptions of the data themselves as well the context (also called thick description) so that readers/research audiences can make comparisons to other contexts based on as much information as
possible

3
Q

Betrouwbaarheid (“Dependability”

A

Is je studie congruent en in staat een antwoord te geven op je onderzoeksvraag?

stability of the data

reasoned argument for how you are
collecting the data, and the data are consistent with your argument.

methods :
-triangulation and sequencing of methods
-creating a well-articulated rationale for these choices to
confirm that you have created the appropriate data collection plan given your research questions

4
Q

Confirmeerbaarheid:

A

Kunnen mijn bevindingen bevestigd worden (of zijn ze gebaseerd op bias, vooroordelen, foute interpretaties)?

acknowledge and explore the ways that our biases and prejudices map onto our interpretations of data
-> mediate those to the fullest extent
possible through structured reflexivity processes

triangulation strategies, researcher reflexivity
processes, and external audits

5
Q

types validiteit: Descriptieve validiteit

emic en etic

A

Zijn mijn data factueel accuraat?

recording and transcribing of interviews (e.g., Who recorded interview transcripts? Who transcribed them? Are there errors or omissions?) and the
taking of fieldnotes

the inseparability of methods and
findings,” > it is extremely important that your data are accurate

6
Q

Interpretatieve validiteit

emic

A

Is er een match tussen geattribueerde betekenis & actuele ervaring?

accuracy of your analysis vis-à-vis the lived experience of the participants in your study.

Methods for achieving this are closely related to
data collection and analysis

VB: how you interpret someone in
the moment of an interview
aspect of interpretive validity.

decisions made during data collection, interpretive validity is affected by how you analyze
the entire corpus of data.

Methods :
use the words and concepts of the people studied; this is referred to as emic accounts in qualitative research.

The contrasting concept is etic, which entails that the language used to describe an account is not organic to the participants, meaning that it is introduced by
the researcher

7
Q

Theoretische validiteit:

A

Geeft mijn studie een afdoend inzicht in de bestudeerde fenomenen (incl. basisconcepten & relaties daartussen)? Is mijn studie geïnformeerd door (en bijdragend aan) de theoretische kennisbasis?

Theoretical validity is about the ability to have your data speak to existing theory and/or to have existing theories inform your data.

Methods
for achieving theoretical validity include ensuring that an applicable theory is provided and that it explains the data.

8
Q

Evaluatieve validiteit:

A

Slaag ik er in om niet te evalueren/oordelen over mensen en/of hun situaties?

Is whether the researcher is able to describe and
understand data without being evaluative or judgmental.

Evaluative validity, like generalizability, is not as central to qualitative research as descriptive, interpretive, and theoretical validity because many qualitative
researchers do not attempt to evaluate what we are studying

9
Q

Generaliseerbaarheid)

A

not a goal … but

This entails determining how individuals from the
same community agree and understand their experiences.

This does not mean that researchers are looking to generalize but rather ask questions about people’s experiences vis-à-vis each other’s experiences

10
Q

wat zijn de strategieen voor validiteit?

A

Triangulatie > verschillende perspectieven
It is commonly thought of as having different sources
or methods challenge and/or confirm a point or set of interpretations. Broadly, triangulation involves “taking different perspectives” ZIE PAGINA 269

Validering door participanten (aka “member checks”) >We prefer the term participant validation since
it connotes what we describe here as a more process-oriented and personcentered approach to challenging interpretations by creating the conditions
for study participants to speak into and about a study

Strategisch sequentiëren van methodes >
Thus, sequencing is about building the complexity of a study through a strategic collection of data

Thick description > rijke gedetailleerde beschrijvingen

Dialogic engagement > it is very important that you think about and strategically design encounters in which you will have your research and your thinking truly challenged.

Multiple coding > H. 8 The goal of this
process is to see how people are coding the data, specifically looking to see if interpretations overlap, intersect, and/or are divergent and in what
ways.

Gestructureerde reflexiviteit >Systematically and critically
engaging with our biases, interpretations, processes, and reflections can help us to produce more complex and ethical research

(Mixed methods) > which strategically combine aspects of
qualitative and quantitative methods, can be an additional way to seek qualitative rigor and validity depending on the research questions, goals, and arguments you are trying to make

11
Q

validity in research in QR

A

Validity is an active methodological process, a central value of qualitative research and a research goal.

Validity needs to be attended to from the research design phase through data collection to analysis and writing up
your finding

Validity, in qualitative research, refers to the ways that researchers can affirm that their findings are faithful to participants’ experiences. Put another way, validity refers to the quality and rigor of a study.

12
Q

transactional validity

A

techniques and attempts to
achieve a “higher level of accuracy and consensus by means of revisiting facts, feelings, experiences, and values or beliefs collected and interpreted”

13
Q

transformational validity

A

emancipatory process leading toward social change”
that “involves a deeper, self-reflective, empathetic
understanding of the researcher while working with the researched

14
Q

meaning validity

A

Validity is an approach to achieving complexity through systematic ways of implementing and assessing a study’s rigor.

qualitative research demonstrates a fidelity to participants’ experiences rather than specific methods

15
Q

Thick description

A

1 aspect in increasing the complexity of your research by thoroughly and clearly describing the study’s context, participants, and related experiences so
as to produce complex interpretations and findings that allow audiences to make more contextualized meaning of your research.

2 Thick
description connotes a depth of contextual detail, usually garnered through multiple data sources, including observation and fieldnotes; it allows readers to have enough information and a depth of context so
that they can picture the setting in their minds and form their own opinions about the quality of your research and your interpretations.

16
Q

Participant validation

A

= member checks, are
processes by which researchers “check in” with participants about different aspects of the research

  • to see how they think and feel about
    various aspects of the research process and the parts of the data set that pertain to them.
  • These strategies can be technical, including having
    participants verify the accuracy of statements and/or transcripts.

-These strategies can also include more relational approaches to engaging with participants to elicit their thoughts and responses to your interpretations
and analytical concepts in more in-depth ways at various points throughout the research process.

  • A goal of participation validation
    processes is to create the conditions that help you to explore and as certain if you are or are not understanding participants’ responses, how you are understanding them, and to be challenged on your data collection processes and your interpretations of the data