Quali Reflexivity And Rigour Flashcards
(4 cards)
What is reflexivity?
- process where researcher considers own assumptions about topic and unpick how own personal beliefs and assumptions shape the research work they undertake
- attending systematically to context of knowledge construction, especially to effect of researcher at every step of research process
Means:
* acknowledging role in research (that prior experience ces, assumptions and beliefs will influence the research process)
* reflecting critically on position taken as researcher and how stance was taken into account in research
* being attentive to: cultural, social, political and ideological origins of own perspective and voice; perspectives and voices of interviewee and observee; perspectives of those to who you report your research
Assessing quality of quali research (theory)
- use existing quants measures — reliability: are the results repeatable? External reliability (can study be replicated?), internal relibaility (do researcher team agree on what they found?). validity: measuring what you say you are? External validity (degree to which results can be generalised across social settings), internal validity (good match between observation and theories developed?)
- develop alternatives — Trustworthiness including credibility (acceptability to others), transferability (sufficient description so reader can assess transferability), dependability (detailed records kept regarding all phases of process), confirmability (research conducted in good faith). Authenticity including fairness (fairly representative of different viewpoints), ontological authenticity (help public have a better understanding of their social environment), educative authenticity (help public appreciate perspectives if other members of their social setting), catalytic authenticity (findings potentially resulting in changes in policies/how things are done), tactical authenticity (empowered participants)
- midway position — validity (empirical account plausible and credible), relevance (importance of topic within substantive field and/or contribution made)
Maximising rigour (practice)
Improving validity:
* triangulation (comparing results from multiple methods or data sources)
* respondent validation (going back to staff/participants to check if the way it has been explained/analysed sounds true to them/if they agree)
* clear exposition of methods of data collection/analysis (reader assess interpretation)
* reflexivity (how researcher and research process shaped the data collection and interpretation)
* attention to negative cases (patterns that don’t fit should still be mentioned to acknowledge variety)
* fair dealing (incorporation of wide range of perspectives
Improving relevance:
* add to/challenge existing knowledge
* enhance transferability (thick description provided, use probability or theoretical sampling)
CORE-Q critique
Research team and reflexivity:
* personal characteristics of researcher (gender, credentials, occupation, experience)
* relationship with participants
Study design:
* theoretical framework (methodology orientation and theory before starting study)
* participant selection (sampling, method of approach, sample size, non-participant)
* setting (setting of data collection, anybody else present other than researcher and participants, sample characteristics and demographics)
* data collection (interview guide, repeat interviews, audio/visual recording, field notes, duration, data saturation, transcripts returned to pts for comments/corrections)
Analysis and findings
* data analysis (number of data coders, description of coding tree, derivation of themes, software used, participant checking)
* reporting (quotes presented, data and findings consistent, clarity of major and minor themes)
Braun and Clark (2024) highly critical of it calling it a problem and find it incompatible with principles of qualitative enquiry
* misses point of scholarship — if hasn’t ticked all boxes = bad?
* applicable in all cases of research? Can it be applied to all research environments
