-
Perspectives on Medical Education Apr 2019As a research methodology, phenomenology is uniquely positioned to help health professions education (HPE) scholars learn from the experiences of others. Phenomenology... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
As a research methodology, phenomenology is uniquely positioned to help health professions education (HPE) scholars learn from the experiences of others. Phenomenology is a form of qualitative research that focuses on the study of an individual's lived experiences within the world. Although it is a powerful approach for inquiry, the nature of this methodology is often intimidating to HPE researchers. This article aims to explain phenomenology by reviewing the key philosophical and methodological differences between two of the major approaches to phenomenology: transcendental and hermeneutic. Understanding the ontological and epistemological assumptions underpinning these approaches is essential for successfully conducting phenomenological research.
PURPOSE
This review provides an introduction to phenomenology and demonstrates how it can be applied to HPE research. We illustrate the two main sub-types of phenomenology and detail their ontological, epistemological, and methodological differences.
CONCLUSIONS
Phenomenology is a powerful research strategy that is well suited for exploring challenging problems in HPE. By building a better understanding of the nature of phenomenology and working to ensure proper alignment between the specific research question and the researcher's underlying philosophy, we hope to encourage HPE scholars to consider its utility when addressing their research questions.
Topics: Awareness; Bullying; Decision Making; Health Occupations; Hermeneutics; Humans; Knowledge; Philosophy; Qualitative Research; Research Design; Research Personnel
PubMed: 30953335
DOI: 10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2 -
The European Journal of General Practice Dec 2018In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked...
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By 'novice' we mean Master's students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs, and referred to publications for further reading. This third article addresses FAQs about sampling, data collection and analysis. The data collection plan needs to be broadly defined and open at first, and become flexible during data collection. Sampling strategies should be chosen in such a way that they yield rich information and are consistent with the methodological approach used. Data saturation determines sample size and will be different for each study. The most commonly used data collection methods are participant observation, face-to-face in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Analyses in ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and content analysis studies yield different narrative findings: a detailed description of a culture, the essence of the lived experience, a theory, and a descriptive summary, respectively. The fourth and final article will focus on trustworthiness and publishing qualitative research.
Topics: Data Collection; Grounded Theory; Humans; Primary Health Care; Qualitative Research; Research Design; Research Personnel; Sample Size
PubMed: 29199486
DOI: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091 -
American Journal of Pharmaceutical... Jan 2020Attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices for qualitative research design as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting... (Review)
Review
Attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices for qualitative research design as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research in health professions educational scholarship are presented. A research question must be clear and focused and supported by a strong conceptual framework, both of which contribute to the selection of appropriate research methods that enhance trustworthiness and minimize researcher bias inherent in qualitative methodologies. Qualitative data collection and analyses are often modified through an iterative approach to answering the research question. Researcher reflexivity, essentially a researcher's insight into their own biases and rationale for decision-making as the study progresses, is critical to rigor. This article reviews common standards of rigor, quality scholarship criteria, and best practices for qualitative research from design through dissemination.
Topics: Data Collection; Education, Pharmacy; Fellowships and Scholarships; Humans; Qualitative Research; Quality Indicators, Health Care; Research Design; Research Personnel
PubMed: 32292186
DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7120 -
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs.The European Journal of General Practice Dec 2017In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked...
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By 'novice' we mean Master's students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. This second article addresses FAQs about context, research questions and designs. Qualitative research takes into account the natural contexts in which individuals or groups function to provide an in-depth understanding of real-world problems. The research questions are generally broad and open to unexpected findings. The choice of a qualitative design primarily depends on the nature of the research problem, the research question(s) and the scientific knowledge one seeks. Ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory are considered to represent the 'big three' qualitative approaches. Theory guides the researcher through the research process by providing a 'lens' to look at the phenomenon under study. Since qualitative researchers and the participants of their studies interact in a social process, researchers influence the research process. The first article described the key features of qualitative research, the third article will focus on sampling, data collection and analysis, while the last article focuses on trustworthiness and publishing.
Topics: Anthropology, Cultural; Grounded Theory; Humans; Primary Health Care; Qualitative Research; Research Design; Research Personnel
PubMed: 29185826
DOI: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375090 -
The Journal of Nursing Education Mar 2009Nursing research has a tremendous influence on current and future professional nursing practice, thus rendering it an essential component of the educational process....
Nursing research has a tremendous influence on current and future professional nursing practice, thus rendering it an essential component of the educational process. This article chronicles the learning experiences of two undergraduate nursing students who were provided with the opportunity to become team members in a study funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research. The application process, the various learning opportunities and responsibilities performed by the students, and the benefits and outcomes of the experience are described. The authors hope that by sharing their learning experiences, more students will be given similar opportunities using the strategies presented in this article. Nursing research is critical to the nursing profession and is necessary for continuing advancements that promote optimal nursing care.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate; Health Services Needs and Demand; Humans; National Institute of Nursing Research (U.S.); Nurse's Role; Nursing Research; Research Personnel; Research Support as Topic; Students, Nursing; United States
PubMed: 19297969
DOI: 10.3928/01484834-20090301-10 -
Lancet (London, England) Jan 2014Correctable weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of biomedical and public health research studies can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources....
Correctable weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of biomedical and public health research studies can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources. Small effects can be difficult to distinguish from bias introduced by study design and analyses. An absence of detailed written protocols and poor documentation of research is common. Information obtained might not be useful or important, and statistical precision or power is often too low or used in a misleading way. Insufficient consideration might be given to both previous and continuing studies. Arbitrary choice of analyses and an overemphasis on random extremes might affect the reported findings. Several problems relate to the research workforce, including failure to involve experienced statisticians and methodologists, failure to train clinical researchers and laboratory scientists in research methods and design, and the involvement of stakeholders with conflicts of interest. Inadequate emphasis is placed on recording of research decisions and on reproducibility of research. Finally, reward systems incentivise quantity more than quality, and novelty more than reliability. We propose potential solutions for these problems, including improvements in protocols and documentation, consideration of evidence from studies in progress, standardisation of research efforts, optimisation and training of an experienced and non-conflicted scientific workforce, and reconsideration of scientific reward systems.
Topics: Reproducibility of Results; Research Design; Research Personnel; Reward; Statistics as Topic
PubMed: 24411645
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 -
BMC Medical Research Methodology Nov 2018Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have...
BACKGROUND
Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields.
METHODS
A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques.
RESULTS
Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly - and often without justification - characterised as insufficient (i.e., 'small') and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies' results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms.
CONCLUSIONS
We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting.
Topics: Humans; Interviews as Topic; Periodicals as Topic; Qualitative Research; Research Personnel; Researcher-Subject Relations; Sample Size; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 30463515
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7 -
Journal of Korean Medical Science Dec 2023The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in... (Review)
Review
The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Scientific Misconduct; Research Design; Research Personnel; Biomedical Research
PubMed: 38050915
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405 -
Translational Behavioral Medicine Jul 2021Dissemination of research beyond the academic community is an ethical responsibility of researchers and necessary in translational research to help ensure the uptake of...
Dissemination of research beyond the academic community is an ethical responsibility of researchers and necessary in translational research to help ensure the uptake of research findings to improve health outcomes. Often, partnerships between community and academicians do not include research dissemination plans, possibly reflecting researchers not knowing how to create these plans. This manuscript details the development process of a research dissemination training module for academicians and researchers. This training was conceptualized and developed by Core faculty and staff. Development steps were: (a) identifying researchers' dissemination needs using the Core Investigator Survey; (b) identifying communities dissemination needs/preferences using feedback from our community advisory board; (c) conducting a literature search to identify dissemination concepts from researchers and community perspectives; (d) developing the training module; (e) conducting a cognitive review with one basic science researcher and one community-based participatory researcher; (f) evaluating the training; and (g) finalizing the training module. Training attendees included 1 clinical and 3 basic science clinical researchers, a biomedical postdoctoral fellow, and 10 research staff. Of those completing the feedback survey, 60% had some experience with research dissemination. As a result of training, more than 50% of respondents strongly agreed that as researchers they have a clear understanding of dissemination, a greater understanding of the dissemination process, how to identify stakeholders and successfully develop a dissemination plan. While disseminating research findings beyond academic publications may be new to some researchers, this training provided the tools to implement dissemination practices in their current and future research.
Topics: Community Participation; Humans; Research Personnel; Translational Research, Biomedical
PubMed: 33823019
DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibab023 -
BMJ Paediatrics Open Nov 2022The objective of this study is twofold: first, to describe the methods used when involving children and young people (CYP) in developing a paediatric research agenda... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is twofold: first, to describe the methods used when involving children and young people (CYP) in developing a paediatric research agenda and, second, to evaluate how the existing literature describes the impact of involving CYP. We distinguish three forms of impact: impact on the research agenda (focused impact), impact on researchers and CYP (diffuse impact) and impact on future research (research impact).
DESIGN
A narrative review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar was conducted from October 2016 to January 2022. The included studies involved at least one CYP in developing a research agenda and were published in English.
RESULTS
22 studies were included; the CYP involved were aged between 6 years and 25 years. Little variation was found in the methods used to involve them. The methods used were James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach (n=16), focus groups (n=2), workshop (n=2), research prioritisation by affected communities (n=1) and combined methods (n=1). Impact was rarely described: focused impact in nine studies, diffuse impact in zero studies and research impact in three studies.
CONCLUSION
This study concludes that the JLA approach is most frequently used to involve CYP and that all methods used to involve them are rarely evaluated. It also concludes that the reported impact of involving CYPs is incomplete. This study implies that to convince sceptical researchers of the benefits of involving CYPs and to justify the costs, more attention should be paid to reporting these impacts.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Research Personnel; Focus Groups; Research
PubMed: 36645790
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2022-001610