html5-img
1 / 11

Critiquing Qualitative Research

Critiquing Qualitative Research. Using Five Standards. Standard 1:Descriptive Vividness.

noble-conway
Télécharger la présentation

Critiquing Qualitative Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Critiquing Qualitative Research Using Five Standards

  2. Standard 1:Descriptive Vividness • The site, subjects (informants) , experience of collecting data, and thinking of the researcher during data collection must be described so clearly that the reader has a sense of personally experiencing the event • Threats – • Failure to include essential descriptive information • Lack of clarity or credibility in description • Inadequate time or observational skills for vivid description • No indication of validation of findings with subjects • Inadequate skill in descriptive narrative writing

  3. Standard 2: Methodological Congruence • Documentation rigor requires identifying the philosophy and the methodological approach the researcher used. It requires clear, concise presentation of subjects, purpose, philosophy, significance, literature review (except for phenomenological study) research questions, assumptions, researcher credentials, ethical implications, data-gathering strategies, data analysis strategies, theoretical development, conclusions, implications for practice, suggestions for further study • Threat – failure to present all elements accurately or clearly

  4. Standard 2: Methodological Congruence • Procedural rigor requies that the researcher clearly state the steps taken to ensure that data were accurately recorded and that data obtained are reperesentative of the data as a whole. • Threats include – • Asking the wrong questions or untrained data collectors • Misinformation from the informant • Lack of informant observation and/or recall • Insufficient data and/or time spent • Inappropriate access or selection or site or subject

  5. Standard 2: Methodological Congruence • Ethical Rigor requires the researcher to recognize and discuss the ethical implications related to the study to ensure that the rights of subjects were protected. • Threats – • Failure to inform subjects of their rights or obtaino informed consent • Failure to ensure protection of subjects’ rights

  6. Standard 2: Methodological Congruence • Auditability is the rigorous development of a decision trail so that a second reader could use the original data and decision trail to arrive at conclusions similar to those of the original researcher. • Threats – • Inadequate description of data collection process • Raw date was insufficient to make judgments • Failure to develop or identify decision rules for arriving at ratings or judgments • Other researchers couldn’t arrive at similar conclusions • Failure to record decisions, data on which they were based and reasoning

  7. Standard 3: Analytical Preciseness • The researcher must transform concrete data across several layers of abstraction. This requires the researcher to identify and record the decision-making process through which the transformations are made. • Threats – • Interpretive statements do not correspond with findings • Categories, themes or theoretical statements fail to set forth a whole picture • Hypotheses or propositions cannot be verified by data or are not presented in the report • The conclusions are not based on the data gathered

  8. Standard 4: Theoretical Connectedness • The theoretical schema developed from the study must be clearly expressed, logically consistent, reflective of the data and compatible with the knowledge base of nursing. • Threats – • Inadequate clarification of concepts (definitions) • Relationships among concepts are not clearly expressed or are not validated by data • The theory developed fails to give a meaningful picture of the phenomenon under study • A conceptual framework r map is not derived from the data • No clear connection is made between the data and nursing frameworks

  9. Standard 5: Heuristic Relevance • The reader must be able to recognize the phenomenon described in the study, its theoretical significance, its applicability to nursing practice and its influence on future research • Intuitive recognition indicates that the theory derived from the data has meaning within the reader’s personal knowledge base. Threats - • The phenomenon is poorly described • The reader is unfamiliar with it • The description is not consistent with common meanings or experiences

  10. Standard 5: Heuristic Relevance • Relationship to the existing body of knowledge requires that there be similarities between the current knowledge base and the study findings and that differences be explored by the researcher. • Threats – • The researcher fails to examine the existing body of knowledge • The process studied is not related to nursing and health

  11. Standard 5: Heuristic Relevance • Applicability means that nurses should be able to integrate the research findings into their knowledge base and apply them in nursing practice. • Threats – • The findings are not relevant to nursing practice • The findings are not important for the discipline of nursing - don’t add to knowledge

More Related