qualitative paper week 10

Section A

Post an explanation of how you ensure the quality, trustworthiness, and credibility of your qualitative research. Provide examples of specific techniques and strategies. Use your Learning Resources as well as the article you found in your search to support your explanation. Use proper APA format, citations, and referencing.

Sample

Quality

Qualitative investigations are commonly compared with quantitative investigations and ethical concerns are not an exception. The concepts of validity and reliability are common to both methodologies but are addressed differently (Shenton, 2004). According to Shenton (2004) qualitative researchers can incorporate measures to address risks to trustworthiness by carefully planning and executing according to the following concepts: credibility (instead of internal validity); transferability (instead of external validity/generalizability); dependability (instead of reliability); and confirmability (instead of objectivity). A quality qualitative study aims to address all issues listed above.

Trustworthiness

To ensure trustworthiness, qualitative research ethical concerns should be addressed in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Credibility

Credibility addresses the central issue of how congruent the findings of the research are with reality (Shenton, 2004). In order to ensure credibility, Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Shenton (2014) details 14 mechanisms to ensure credibility: 1) the adoption of research methods well established both in qualitative investigation in general and in information science in particular; 2) the development of an early familiarity with the culture of participating organizations before the first data collection dialogues take place; 3) random sampling of individuals to serve as informants; 4)triangulation; 5)tactics to help ensure honesty in informants when contributing data; 6) iterative questioning; 7) negative case analysis; 8) frequent debriefing sessions between the researcher and his or her superiors; 9) peer scrutiny; 10) the researcher’s reflective commentary; 11) background, qualifications and experience of the investigator; 12) member checks; 13)detailed description of the phenomenon under scrutiny; and 14) examination of previous research findings to assess the degree to which the project’s results are congruent with those of past studies.

Examples

The research purpose of my project would be to explore in depth, through a qualitative methodology, the experience of persons living in the Bahamas that have symptoms of anxiety and how they were able or not to find access to a diagnosis and treatment options, according to their socioeconomic status and culturally shaped beliefs regarding mental health. My sample is composed by university students and I would gather data through focus groups. I would like to focus my investigation into the society where I live and work in the past 9 years: Nassau, the Bahamas.

In order to ensure quality through credibility and trustworthiness, I would carefully consider researcher bias and my rapport with students and also gatekeepers. Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I have been living and working as a psychotherapist in the country for the last 9 years with a certain extensive exposure due to my work in a non-profit organization that allows me to conduct large community groups (Abernethy, Allen & Carroll, 2018), my private practice and some speaking engagements (including TV interviews). I also personally and professionally interact with persons of the University Psychology Department as well as some students, although I have never worked there.

My choice would be to conduct my investigations in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Shenton (2004) list of 14 strategies to increase credibility are helpful and I can see that I already have some of them, as for example, the adoption of research methods well established both in qualitative investigation in general and in information science in particular, and the development of an early familiarity with the culture of participating organizations before the first data collection dialogues take place (Shenton, 2004).

Reflections

Another challenge to be considered is researcher bias and my rapport with students and also gatekeepers. Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I have been living and working as a psychotherapist in the country for the last 9 years with a certain extensive exposure due to my work in a non-profit organization that allows me to conduct large community groups (Abernethy, Allen & Carroll, 2018), my private practice and some speaking engagements (including TV interviews). I also personally and professionally interact with persons of the University Psychology Department as well as some students, although I have never worked there.

My choice would be to conduct my investigations in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). My positionality also must be considered, as I am part of the racial minority (Caucasian), I am female, married, a mother, a foreigner (from South America) and I have lived and worked in three different countries and in three different languages. I have had the opportunity to accompany, professionally and personally, many persons struggling with depression and anxiety. I am constantly put in the position of being simultaneously an insider and an outsider to the phenomena I am engaged with and I have developed a heightened awareness of the role my positionality could play on my investigations. Is there anything else I should be aware of or plan accordingly in regard to my positionality that would enrichen my investigation and not compromise it?

References

Abernethy, A. D., Allen, D. F., & Carroll, M. A. (2018). Adapting Group Therapy to Address Real World Problems: Insights from Groups Offered in the Bahamas. International Journal

of Group Psychotherapy, 68(1), 17-34.

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.

Section B

For this Discussion, you will explore the ethical challenges you will encounter as a qualitative researcher.

• Review Chapter 11 of the Ravitch and Carl course text and consider ethics in qualitative research.
• Use the Course Guide and Assignment Help to search for an article related to protecting privacy, minimizing harm, or respecting the shared experience of others.

Post an explanation of the unique ethical challenges of protecting privacy, minimizing harm, and respecting the shared experience of others. Use your Learning Resources to support your explanation as well as the article you found in your search. Use proper APA format, citations, and referencing.

Sample

Protecting Privacy

Protecting privacy has always been a central ethical issue, but it is even more relevant nowadays due to the new opportunities and challenges due to the use of the internet as a way of collecting data (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Although I am not planning on collecting data through the internet, I may find challenges in assuring anonymity. A common challenge for qualitative investigations is how to deal withconfidentiality and anonymity issues, but it could be even more relevant in smaller communities. New Providence, the capital of The Bahamas is home for 90% of the countries’ population of approximately 400 thousand people and the University of The Bahamas have less than 5 thousand students (University of The Bahamas, 2017). According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) while confidentiality refers to an individual’s privacy (how and what data related to participants will be revealed), anonymity refers to the impossibility for anyone to identify an individual within a sample of participants (data is aggregated and not individually contextualized or displayed).

A practical way I could ensure confidentiality is through the use of pseudonyms, but it does not ensure anonymity, once many other details could reveal the participants identity. To ensure both, I should be careful not associate pseudonyms identifying information or associated it with data. But, as highlighted by Ravitch and Carl (2016), sometimes this is only possible in large sample study. If I only use pseudonyms but are not careful with other identifying characteristics, it would not be so difficult for participants to lose their anonymity. The use of focus group could add to those challenges and the only way to abide to ethical standards would be to discuss in a transparent way those challenges and explain how I am planning to deal with them with the participants (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Minimizing Harm

The research purpose would be to explore in depth, through a qualitative methodology, the experience of persons living in the Bahamas that have symptoms of anxiety and how they were able or not to find access to a diagnosis and treatment options, according to their socioeconomic status and culturally shaped beliefs regarding mental health. My sample is composed by university students and I would gather data through focus groups. I would like to focus my investigation into the society where I live and work in the past 9 years: Nassau, the Bahamas.Changes in society have accelerated, creating different challenges and possibly impacting traditional lifestyles, including the area of mental health. According to Abernathy, Allen and Carroll (2018). The Bahamas has undergone a serious social fragmentation process, due to the widespread cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and significant international financial downturn since 2008. This social fragmentation would be manifested by burgeoning murder and violent crime rates, widespread angry outbursts and destruction of the family and community.

Due to this worrisome scenario, investigations into the experiences of adults suffering from anxiety and depression symptomatologywould allow a better picture of the problems to be addressed for more effective design, implementation and evaluation of social and health programs for this population. But I must be careful with this population as not cause more harm, as for example, not to exacerbate the anxiety symptoms. I should create an experience through data collection that is very respectful and reassuring for participants. I also need to ensure that possibilities of access to mental health care would be available for participants that are suffering from anxiety symptoms and would like to do so.

My choice would be to conduct my investigations in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Respecting Shared Experiences

Another challenge to be considered is that my rapport participants are done with respect to the shared experiences. Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). In dealing with mental health issues and possible stigma attached to it, the researcher has to be extra careful, especially when focus group are thought as the data collection method. To counterbalance the risks I would like to count on my experience with groups in the context of the Bahamas for the last 9 years (Abernathy, Allen & Carroll, 2018), as according to Shenton (2004) the development of an early familiarity with the culture of participating organizations before the first data collection, as well as with the data collection methodology could prove protective and respectful of participants experiences.

References

Abernethy, A. D., Allen, D. F., & Carroll, M. A. (2018). Adapting Group Therapy to Address Real World Problems: Insights from Groups Offered in the Bahamas. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 68(1), 17-34

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.

University of The Bahamas (2017). UB at a glance. Retrieved from: http://www.ub.edu.bs/about-us/ub-at-a-glance/#1480568452998-07e893f1-7057

Please use the subheadingSection A

Post an explanation of how you ensure the quality, trustworthiness, and credibility of your qualitative research. Provide examples of specific techniques and strategies. Use your Learning Resources as well as the article you found in your search to support your explanation. Use proper APA format, citations, and referencing.

Sample

Quality

Qualitative investigations are commonly compared with quantitative investigations and ethical concerns are not an exception. The concepts of validity and reliability are common to both methodologies but are addressed differently (Shenton, 2004). According to Shenton (2004) qualitative researchers can incorporate measures to address risks to trustworthiness by carefully planning and executing according to the following concepts: credibility (instead of internal validity); transferability (instead of external validity/generalizability); dependability (instead of reliability); and confirmability (instead of objectivity). A quality qualitative study aims to address all issues listed above.

Trustworthiness

To ensure trustworthiness, qualitative research ethical concerns should be addressed in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Credibility

Credibility addresses the central issue of how congruent the findings of the research are with reality (Shenton, 2004). In order to ensure credibility, Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Shenton (2014) details 14 mechanisms to ensure credibility: 1) the adoption of research methods well established both in qualitative investigation in general and in information science in particular; 2) the development of an early familiarity with the culture of participating organizations before the first data collection dialogues take place; 3) random sampling of individuals to serve as informants; 4)triangulation; 5)tactics to help ensure honesty in informants when contributing data; 6) iterative questioning; 7) negative case analysis; 8) frequent debriefing sessions between the researcher and his or her superiors; 9) peer scrutiny; 10) the researcher’s reflective commentary; 11) background, qualifications and experience of the investigator; 12) member checks; 13)detailed description of the phenomenon under scrutiny; and 14) examination of previous research findings to assess the degree to which the project’s results are congruent with those of past studies.

Examples

The research purpose of my project would be to explore in depth, through a qualitative methodology, the experience of persons living in the Bahamas that have symptoms of anxiety and how they were able or not to find access to a diagnosis and treatment options, according to their socioeconomic status and culturally shaped beliefs regarding mental health. My sample is composed by university students and I would gather data through focus groups. I would like to focus my investigation into the society where I live and work in the past 9 years: Nassau, the Bahamas.

In order to ensure quality through credibility and trustworthiness, I would carefully consider researcher bias and my rapport with students and also gatekeepers. Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I have been living and working as a psychotherapist in the country for the last 9 years with a certain extensive exposure due to my work in a non-profit organization that allows me to conduct large community groups (Abernethy, Allen & Carroll, 2018), my private practice and some speaking engagements (including TV interviews). I also personally and professionally interact with persons of the University Psychology Department as well as some students, although I have never worked there.

My choice would be to conduct my investigations in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Shenton (2004) list of 14 strategies to increase credibility are helpful and I can see that I already have some of them, as for example, the adoption of research methods well established both in qualitative investigation in general and in information science in particular, and the development of an early familiarity with the culture of participating organizations before the first data collection dialogues take place (Shenton, 2004).

Reflections

Another challenge to be considered is researcher bias and my rapport with students and also gatekeepers. Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I have been living and working as a psychotherapist in the country for the last 9 years with a certain extensive exposure due to my work in a non-profit organization that allows me to conduct large community groups (Abernethy, Allen & Carroll, 2018), my private practice and some speaking engagements (including TV interviews). I also personally and professionally interact with persons of the University Psychology Department as well as some students, although I have never worked there.

My choice would be to conduct my investigations in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). My positionality also must be considered, as I am part of the racial minority (Caucasian), I am female, married, a mother, a foreigner (from South America) and I have lived and worked in three different countries and in three different languages. I have had the opportunity to accompany, professionally and personally, many persons struggling with depression and anxiety. I am constantly put in the position of being simultaneously an insider and an outsider to the phenomena I am engaged with and I have developed a heightened awareness of the role my positionality could play on my investigations. Is there anything else I should be aware of or plan accordingly in regard to my positionality that would enrichen my investigation and not compromise it?

References

Abernethy, A. D., Allen, D. F., & Carroll, M. A. (2018). Adapting Group Therapy to Address Real World Problems: Insights from Groups Offered in the Bahamas. International Journal

of Group Psychotherapy, 68(1), 17-34.

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.

Section B

For this Discussion, you will explore the ethical challenges you will encounter as a qualitative researcher.

• Review Chapter 11 of the Ravitch and Carl course text and consider ethics in qualitative research.
• Use the Course Guide and Assignment Help to search for an article related to protecting privacy, minimizing harm, or respecting the shared experience of others.

Post an explanation of the unique ethical challenges of protecting privacy, minimizing harm, and respecting the shared experience of others. Use your Learning Resources to support your explanation as well as the article you found in your search. Use proper APA format, citations, and referencing.

Sample

Protecting Privacy

Protecting privacy has always been a central ethical issue, but it is even more relevant nowadays due to the new opportunities and challenges due to the use of the internet as a way of collecting data (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Although I am not planning on collecting data through the internet, I may find challenges in assuring anonymity. A common challenge for qualitative investigations is how to deal withconfidentiality and anonymity issues, but it could be even more relevant in smaller communities. New Providence, the capital of The Bahamas is home for 90% of the countries’ population of approximately 400 thousand people and the University of The Bahamas have less than 5 thousand students (University of The Bahamas, 2017). According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) while confidentiality refers to an individual’s privacy (how and what data related to participants will be revealed), anonymity refers to the impossibility for anyone to identify an individual within a sample of participants (data is aggregated and not individually contextualized or displayed).

A practical way I could ensure confidentiality is through the use of pseudonyms, but it does not ensure anonymity, once many other details could reveal the participants identity. To ensure both, I should be careful not associate pseudonyms identifying information or associated it with data. But, as highlighted by Ravitch and Carl (2016), sometimes this is only possible in large sample study. If I only use pseudonyms but are not careful with other identifying characteristics, it would not be so difficult for participants to lose their anonymity. The use of focus group could add to those challenges and the only way to abide to ethical standards would be to discuss in a transparent way those challenges and explain how I am planning to deal with them with the participants (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Minimizing Harm

The research purpose would be to explore in depth, through a qualitative methodology, the experience of persons living in the Bahamas that have symptoms of anxiety and how they were able or not to find access to a diagnosis and treatment options, according to their socioeconomic status and culturally shaped beliefs regarding mental health. My sample is composed by university students and I would gather data through focus groups. I would like to focus my investigation into the society where I live and work in the past 9 years: Nassau, the Bahamas.Changes in society have accelerated, creating different challenges and possibly impacting traditional lifestyles, including the area of mental health. According to Abernathy, Allen and Carroll (2018). The Bahamas has undergone a serious social fragmentation process, due to the widespread cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and significant international financial downturn since 2008. This social fragmentation would be manifested by burgeoning murder and violent crime rates, widespread angry outbursts and destruction of the family and community.

Due to this worrisome scenario, investigations into the experiences of adults suffering from anxiety and depression symptomatologywould allow a better picture of the problems to be addressed for more effective design, implementation and evaluation of social and health programs for this population. But I must be careful with this population as not cause more harm, as for example, not to exacerbate the anxiety symptoms. I should create an experience through data collection that is very respectful and reassuring for participants. I also need to ensure that possibilities of access to mental health care would be available for participants that are suffering from anxiety symptoms and would like to do so.

My choice would be to conduct my investigations in the context of a relational approach. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016) a relational approach is based on a conscient effort form the researcher to be open to critical self-reflection and change, by always taking into consideration the contexts, including language and power struggles. It is described as a person centered and socially contextualized approach and all findings from such investigations are process driven (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Respecting Shared Experiences

Another challenge to be considered is that my rapport participants are done with respect to the shared experiences. Ravitch and Carl (2016) encourage researchers to go beyond the mandatory following codes of ethics of Institutional Review Board (IRB) committees by carefully screening the processes of “negotiating entrée” (informed consent and assent) and “building rapport” (with participants and gatekeepers) as well as the establishment of boundaries (differences between rapport and friendship) and the careful planning on how to build reciprocity with participants and gatekeepers (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). In dealing with mental health issues and possible stigma attached to it, the researcher has to be extra careful, especially when focus group are thought as the data collection method. To counterbalance the risks I would like to count on my experience with groups in the context of the Bahamas for the last 9 years (Abernathy, Allen & Carroll, 2018), as according to Shenton (2004) the development of an early familiarity with the culture of participating organizations before the first data collection, as well as with the data collection methodology could prove protective and respectful of participants experiences.

References

Abernethy, A. D., Allen, D. F., & Carroll, M. A. (2018). Adapting Group Therapy to Address Real World Problems: Insights from Groups Offered in the Bahamas. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 68(1), 17-34

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.  

Looking for a similar assignment? Our writers will offer you original work free from plagiarism. We follow the assignment instructions to the letter and always deliver on time. Be assured of a quality paper that will raise your grade. Order now and Get a 15% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"