Qualitative Research Group (QRG) – FEBRUARY 2012 Newsletter The vision of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) is to connect qualitative research findings to real world outcomes both locally and internationally, working towards positive change in the community and a better understanding of the world around us. The QRG provides assistance to researchers engaged in qualitative research, including mixed methods, in a wide range of interdisciplinary sites. It supports professional training opportunities as well as collegial partnerships between students and Faculty, community and government. In 2011, the QRG acquired University of Manitoba Research Group Status. This listserv was started in the early spring of 2008 and now has 200+ participants working in the Prairies and across Canada as well as internationally, in medicine (community health sciences, dentistry, pediatrics, neurosurgery), nursing, medical rehabilitation, social work, sociology, anthropology, education, disability studies, human ecology (nutrition, family social sciences), First Nations universities, women’s and gender studies, engineering, and the Dafoe library (University of Manitoba). The monthly newsletters are sent out on the first of each month and announce national and international conferences, noon-hour discussions on methodology, research findings, journals and books, and other initiatives of interest. Your contributions to the listserv are welcome – please send these two or more working days prior to the last day of any month for compilation. This is an important opportunity for qualitative researchers to come together and build resources. Pass it on! Kerstin Stieber Roger, Director QRG Advisory Committee: Janice Ristock (Associate Vice-President, Research, UM); Roberta Woodgate (Nursing); Tuula Heinonen (Social Work); Michelle Driedger (CHS); Maria Medved (Psychology); student reps include Hai Luo and Sulaye Thakrar. *********************************************************************************************************** FEBRUARY Table of Contents: 1. February Actions a. QRG Annual Research Award b. QRG Poster Creation Workshop c. Member Bios d. NVIVO course registration e. Call for Papers 2. February FactBites a. Qualitative Research LINKs: b. CIHR - RPP Affiliate c. Qualitative Consultants File d. Qualitative Research Space 3. Archive for QRG newsletters ********************************************************************************************************** 1. FEBRUARY Actions: This section will promote current events with a focus on qualitative research. a. QRG Annual Research Award: The QRG annual research award is a formal way of recognizing graduate students, faculty, and affiliated community-based researchers engaged in innovative and sustainable qualitative research. This year the QRG award was geared towards researchers engaged in qualitative research in the community. We had three excellent nominations each of whom demonstrated extensive research with their respective communities. After careful deliberation, the selection committee is awarding Ms. Marlyn Bennett the Qualitative Research Group Award this year. Thank-you to the ‘Indigenous Caucus’ for the nomination.

Ms. Bennett is Director of Research and Principal-Editor-in-Chief of First Peoples Child & Family Review (online journal) at the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society in Winnipeg, MB. She has been involved in many different qualitative projects prepared for both government organizations and scholarly publications. Much of this work has been targeted towards evaluating the relationships between aboriginal peoples and child welfare organizations. Through this work, Ms. Bennett has mentored several other community researchers, provided valuable information to numerous organizations which impact the lives of First Nations peoples, and given a voice to people who rarely are given the opportunity to have their voices heard. Ms. Bennett’s nomination highlights many different ongoing community projects geared towards accomplishing

these often very diverse tasks. With this extensive research work, Ms. Bennett is very well deserving of this award. Thank you to all the nominators and nominees for their participation in the QRG award. Thank-you to Sulaye Thakrar for administering the details of the award. b. QRG Poster Creation Workshop: Are you interested in learning how to create your own posters for conferences describing qualitative research? This workshop will help you out. Please see attachment 1b. c. QRG Member Bios: As we begin to prepare for a more interactive webpage, we are requesting that each member who wants to be listed on our upcoming webpage to provide us with the following information by April 1 : your name, title, department and affiliation, contact information, up to 5 points/sentences that describe your focus in teaching and/or research on qualitative research. A foto is optional. d. NVIVO course registration: Are you interested in learning more about working with NVIVO, a program for qualitative data management? Please see attachment 1d. e. Call for Papers – IQRC. A qualitative conference in Saskatchewan in June 2012. Please see attachment 1e.

2. FEBRUARY FactBite: This section will promote research centers, ongoing research, journals and books with a focus on qualitative research.

a. Qualitative Research LINKs:

i. New LINK to QRG: You can now find us online under University of Manitoba Research / Research Groups and @ http://umanitoba.ca/human_ecology/qrg. Look out for a new webpage in 2012!

ii. A new book on teaching and learning narrative inquiry. Thank-you to Dr. Yi Li for this abstract / contribution.

Learning and Teaching Narrative Inquiry: Travelling in the Borderlands by Sheila Trahar (Ed.) (2011). In the final chapter of this volume, the authors refer to the pedagogical vantage points offered by narrative inquiry, an apt comment that encapsulates the volume’s purpose and its spirit. As an increasing number of people throughout the world and from a broad range of disciplines are turning to narrative as a research methodology, this volume is timely in its focus on the learning and teaching of this approach. The contributors to the volume, all narrative scholars themselves, write about the creative and challenging pedagogical activities that they use in order to enable others to learn about and do narrative research. The volume will be of particular interest to

those teaching narrative research methodologies at both undergraduate and postgraduate level in the social sciences, medical sciences and the humanities. The contributions from Hong Kong, Israel, Europe and North America, all reflect critically on the rich complexities of using and teaching narrative in those contexts and attend closely to the diverse constituencies of their learning communities.

iii. An excellent article supporting quality in qualitative publishing – please see attachment 2a-iii. Thank-you to Kristin Reynolds for sending this in.

b. CIHR- RPP Affiliate: Now that the QRG has University of Manitoba research group status, it is also a CIHR – Manitoba Regional Partnerships Program (RPP) affiliate. When a signature for the FAAF form is required, please provide 72 hours in advance – scanned and emailed is preferred. Thank-you. c. QRG Consultants File – We have begun keeping a consultants file for researchers in need of qualitative consulting. This includes research methodology and skills training. At this time, we have eight diverse consultants who are available across the country for workshops, guidance, and training. Please send your qualitative research requests here and you will be linked up with appropriate experts. d. Qualitative Research Space on Campus Need to do some qualitative research and don’t have the space? Human Ecology has three bright and open multipurpose rooms available to conduct and observe individual interviews, counselling sessions, and/or focus groups. Two rooms have a one-way mirror and one has an adjoining control room, equipped for video-recording. One of the rooms has presentation equipment and is wired for videoconferencing capability across Canada and internationally. For more information about the technology, email Glenda Parson @ gparson@cc.umanitoba.ca. To book space, email Stephanie Yarema @ yaremas@cc.umanitoba.ca. 3. Archive: Previous newsletters are posted @ http://umanitoba.ca/human_ecology/qrg. If you wish to be removed from this list, please let us know.

Preparing  a  Poster  to  Describe  a  Qualitative  Research  Project    Do  you  need  help  to  put  together  a  poster  presentation  about  your  qualitative  research  for  an  audience  at  a  conference  or  community  event?  Do  you  want  to  learn  about  the  components  that  make  up  a  good  poster  presentation?    Do  you  want  to  attract  people  to  come  and  see  your  poster  presentation  when  there  are  many  others  doing  the  same?    If  so,  we  invite  you  to  attend  a  free  workshop  on  preparing  a  poster  presentation  for  qualitative  research  given  by  Dr.  Tuula  Heinonen  from  the  Faculty  of  Social  Work.  Laptops  are  required,  and  you  may  bring  your  own  data,  if  you  have  it.  It  takes  place  on  March  12  from  2:30  to  4pm  (room  TBA).    Please  address  questions  to  Tuula  Heinonen  at  heinonn@cc.umanitoba.ca.  Register  by  March  5  by  sending  an  email  to  Kerstin  Roger  at  rogerk@cc.umanitoba.ca.    

                                                                   

CHSC 77610 T01

Qualitative Data Analysis Software in Research 1.5 credit short course

Course Outline, Winter 2012 Professor Dr. S. Michelle Driedger Office: T153 – Old Basic Medical Sciences Mailing address: S113-750 Bannatyne Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0W3 Tel: (204) 789-3936 Email: Michelle_Driedger@UManitoba.ca Class Time and Location Periodic Mondays: 10:30-12:00 - January 30, Feb 13, Feb 27 and March 12. Two 6 hour workshops on Saturdays: February 4 and February 18, from 9AM to 3PM Room R060, 770 Bannatyne Ave (Betty Havens Seminar Room) Office Hours Mondays 9:00-10:00 AM, by chance, or by appointment Course Overview This course is designed to give students a hand’s on experience in using NVivo 9 (NV9) to analyze a qualitative data set. A dataset will be given to students to use for all assignment purposes. Students will have the opportunity to bring in their own dataset should they have one that has not been previously analyzed. At the end of the course, students will know how to import a variety of documents for analysis (e.g. interview transcripts, peer reviewed literature, etc), they will learn how to develop nodes to code data, run queries, create project memos, and model their project. Students will be evaluated on their NV9 project file as well as a written report that accompanies the project to describe what they did and how they analyzed the data. Course Objectives • To learn aspects related to how to handle qualitative data • To develop hands on strategies of analyzing data using NVivo 9 • To learn how to create an audit trail of a qualitative project • To understand differences in coding styles of qualitative data • To gain some experience in doing a computer based qualitative analysis

Course Text Richards, Lyn. 2010. Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide, 2nd Ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Optional Texts NVivo9: Basics and Advanced – a two set publication available from QSR. http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_books-and-manuals.aspx Edhlund, B.M. 2011. NVivo 9 Essentials. Sweden: Form & Kunskap. Course Requirements Students outside of Community Health Sciences enrolled in the course needs to have access to their own copy of NV9. It is possible to download a trial version of the software for 30 days from the QSR website. Pre or co-requisite CHSC 7740 or another qualitative methods course from a different department that is pre-evaluated by the instructor

CALL FOR PAPERS

June 12 & 13, 2012 University of Saskatchewan

Saskatoon, SK Canada

For abstract submission please visit http://ocs.usask.ca/iqrc2012

For more information please visit http://drc.usask.ca/projects/iqrc/IQRC_2012.html

or contact: Conference Coordinator, Laurie Schimpf

iqrc.2012@usask.ca

Presentations or posters may address topics such as: narrative methodologies, findings from mixed methods or qualitative studies, arts based inquiry, theatre, photography, transdisciplinary research, use of new qualitative techniques and methods, innovative blends of qualitative and quantitative methods, and advances in knowledge translation.

Presentations: 15 minutes with 5 minutes for discussion Posters: Dedicated poster session

Confirmed Keynote Ronald J. Pelias is a Professor of Speech Communication and the Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of Speech Communication at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He received his Ph.D. in Speech Communication from the University of Illinois (1979). His interests include performance theory and criticism, performative writing and autoethnography. He is the author of Performance Studies: Leaning: A Poetics of Personal Relations and A Methodology of the Heart: Evoking Academic and Daily Life.

Abstract Submission Deadline Feb 29, 2012

EditorialThe Gerontologist © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.Vol. 51, No. 3, 281–284 All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.doi:10.1093/geront/gnr032

Vol. 51, No. 3, 2011 281

Over three and a half years ago, The Gerontolo-gist (TG) made a significant and unprecedented commitment to promoting qualitative research when then-Editor-in-Chief Jim McAuley appointed an associate editor (Nancy Schoenberg) with expertise in qualitative design. Soon after this appointment, they co-authored a brief editorial (Schoenberg & McAuley, 2007), making public the journal’s commitment to publishing high-quality qualitative research and providing guidelines for both authors and reviewers. The recent appoint-ment of Rachel Pruchno as Editor-in-Chief of TG provides an opportune moment to consider our past, current, and future commitment to publishing the most innovative, theoretically sound, and meth-odologically rigorous scholarly works from both the qualitative and the quantitative research tradi-tions. In this editorial, we suggest how research using qualitative approaches may advance geron-tological knowledge, discuss the growing presence of qualitative articles in TG, and offer expanded guidance for authors submitting qualitative and mixed methods manuscripts and reviewers assessing these works.

Strength in Both Approaches: Beyond the Great Divide

During the past several years, TG has made sig-nificant progress reconciling the perspectives of authors trained in qualitative methods with those of reviewers and readers, the majority of whom have been educated in quantitative techniques. Such progress will continue as scholars go beyond epistemological biases pervasive in the past. Increasingly, it is acknowledged that qualitative and quantitative research is grounded in two very

different, but no lesser or greater, modes of social science inquiry: the positivist and interpretivist research traditions. The positivist tradition is deduc-tive, seeking to establish cause and test hypotheses, mainly though not exclusively through quantitative methods. The interpretivist tradition is inductive, seeking to establish meaning and understanding, mainly though not exclusively through qualitative methods.

Qualitative methods permit investigators to study selected issues in depth and detail. Such approaches assume that researchers are uncon-strained by predetermined categories of analysis and sustain a profitable closeness to the situation, allowing enhanced sensitivity to multiple data sources. Qualitative researchers often seek out multiple stakeholders and divergent perspectives, examining the whole context rather than its con-stituent parts. They frequently emphasize imple-mentation and process in addition to outcomes. Qualitative approaches generally make an effort to rule in most information while explaining variability and not dismissing it as error or outlier.

Research on aging can benefit greatly from the application of multiple mutually reinforcing methods within and across studies. Cross-validation might take place when qualitative and quantitative methods are used to examine the same phenomena. Convergence, or agreement, increases confidence in an explanation; divergence, or disagreement, decreases confidence. Qualitative data also may be used to identify and explain the causal mechanisms that underlie associations found quantitatively. Whereas statistical analyses might enable researchers to identify possible causal relations, the qualitative/interpretivist model can help explain whether or not (and why) a set of relationships is theoretically

The Qualitative Portfolio at The Gerontologist: Strong and Getting Stronger

at University of M

anitoba Libraries on O

ctober 24, 2011http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

The Gerontologist282

and substantively meaningful. Qualitative data also may be useful for investigating aspects of a phenomenon that, due to a lack of quantitative data, may never be examined statistically. Finally, qualitative data can be used to generate new prop-ositions and hypotheses for subsequent study.

A Growing and Continuing Tradition of Qualitative Scholarship at TG

Submission and publication of qualitative manuscripts have increased substantially in the recent past. In 2008, TG received 61 qualitative manuscripts; there were 82 submissions in 2009; and in 2010, there were 77 qualitative manu-scripts submitted. With the increase in qualita-tive submissions and careful attention to high standards of scholarship, the number of qualita-tive manuscripts published in TG has doubled. While in 2003, 2004, and 2005, TG published 5, 7, and 6 qualitative manuscripts, respectively, (Schoenberg, Shenk, & Cart, 2007) in 2008, 2009, and 2010, 9, 10, and 11 qualitative articles were published. As a case in point, over one third of the research articles in the February 2011 issue used qualitative methods. These included an article using a consensual qualitative research approach through focus groups to assess African American perspectives on brain donation (Lambe, Cantwell, Islam, Horvath, & Jefferson, 2011), a grounded theory approach to examine cross-cultural perspectives on dementia (Lawrence, Samsi, Banerjee, Morgan, & Murray, 2011), and in-depth semi-structured interviews to draw out description of strengths and resil-ience among adults with HIV/AIDS (Emlet, Tozay, & Raveis, 2011).

The growing number and diversity of qualita-tive submissions has garnered the attention of many readers, resulting in frequent citations of qualitative articles. For example, in 2009, 8 of the 20 most frequently cited articles published in TG employed qualitative designs. This greater atten-tion to qualitative research has fostered the need for more input from reviewers and editorial board members from diverse epistemological traditions. Currently, TG has nearly 200 reviewers with qual-itative research methods expertise. (And we are always looking to expand this list.) Our recently reconfigured editorial board contains 4 new quali-tatively trained members, for a total of 13 board members with explicit expertise in qualitative methods.

Guidance for Authors Submitting Qualitative Pieces and Reviewers Assessing These Works

Despite TG’s exponential growth in qualitative research publications, the number of qualitative articles continues to fall short of its potential. Over the past three years, six shortcomings have been responsible for the vast majority of unsuccessful submissions. These problems include lack of novelty; insufficient use or development of theory; inadequate methodological specification; insuffi-cient data analysis description; inadequate rich-ness, most especially lack of contextualization; inadequate connection between overall findings or themes and data (e.g., narrative evidence); and lack of implications.

To improve the likelihood of successful submis-sion outcomes, qualitative researchers should pay more attention to prevailing standards of their own traditions that, if addressed, might increase confidence and acceptance of qualitative work (see, e.g., http://www.qualres.org/). Approaches and assumptions among research traditions vary: Shouldn’t we hold consistent the expectation that researchers explain their approach, methods, and data analysis procedures carefully?

Consider external validity. Because qualitative investigations typically focus on a handful of cases, use of the sampling logic typically employed in quantitative studies to demonstrate external valid-ity does not apply. However, qualitative researchers should consider providing enough detail for others to determine transferability to their particular con-text. Qualitative researchers should also explain steps taken to enhance reliability or dependability in data collection, including methodological con-sistency and potential replicability. Such expla-nation generally involves detailed documentation of study procedures and data, use of systematic decision rules, including a common coding man-ual, review by outside experts, and collaboration among multiple coders.

A third set of criteria, credibility and confirm-ability, are akin to internal validity. Whereas the former involves demonstrating the credibility of study findings to key informants and other parties, the latter involves demonstrating that they derive from the attributes of the study context itself. These criteria can be furthered through systematic case selection, use of multiple data sources (trian-gulation), and prolonged and persistent engage-ment with the study context, including review of preliminary findings by key informants.

at University of M

anitoba Libraries on O

ctober 24, 2011http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

Vol. 51, No. 3, 2011 283

Table 1. A Guide for Use by Authors and Reviewers to Thoroughly and Appropriately Evaluate Qualitative Research Articles

Section Standards Notes for authors Notes for reviewers

Overall presentation Conforms to TG “instructions for authors” (e.g., word limits, APA style, format, editing, tables in the correct location).

Observe space limits; consider recent TG qualitative articles as models. Have native English speaker proofread final draft.

Rich description uses many words. TG permits qualitative articles to have an extra 1,000 words; however, writing should avoid jargon and verbosity. Writing in first person is acceptable and often desirable.

Title Reflects the essence of the research focus.

Be succinct. Novel, interesting titles (including those using quotes) are fine, but reader should understand immediately the article’s focus. Avoid the subheading: “A Qualitative Study.”

Giving voice to a particularly illustrative quote is encouraged.Specifying that this is a qualitative article demarcates work as a departure from the norm, a problematic perspective (think: woman doctor, male nurse).

Background Reviews key existing research; builds methodological, conceptual, and substantive justification for current study, identifies existing gaps.

Select current qualitative and quantitative literature to provide background and justification for article.

May include field site or setting description. Oftentimes provides rich context.

Research questions or purpose

Clearly and succinctly stated early in the paper, conceptual or theoretical framework present.

Justify what the study adds to literature, why the study needed to be done.

Description and rich insights are standard, may include hypothesis generation rather than testing.

Research question is highly significant, novel/not previously examined in the current manner, and has application for improving older adults’ lives.

New insights must be provided; generally, very rich description of previously unexplored processes or phenomena.

Qualitative methods often extend existing work to focus on overlooked groups; or dimensions of a phenomenon; may describe process, focus on how or why.

Methods: Design and procedures

Explanation and justification of specific qualitative approach.

Link methods to research goals, justify and delineate why this approach is appropriate, avoid jargon

There are many types of qualitative research; acceptability of approach depends on research question.

Explanation of sampling and protocols including: inclusion/ exclusion criteria, who collected the data and when, sample size and justification, recruitment protocols, refusal rates, midcourse design changes, numbers of interviews/data collection points, interview schedule, or focus of observations.

Sampling strategy must fit research question, steps must be clearly laid out to enable replication and ensure reader confidence

Random sampling and power analyses likely inappropriate; sample size tends to focus on depth, not breadth; midcourse changes can be positive and enhance validity; multimethod approaches (e.g., ethnography) are appropriate

Description of human subjects assurances and procedures.

Be sure appropriate human subjects procedures have been described, including IRB approval.

Human subjects issues should be appropriate to the type of investigation.

Data analysis well described, including: specific analytic procedures, who analyzed the data, measures taken to ensure validity and avoid bias (steps to enhance credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability).

Software does not substitute for analysis, avoid jargon, define terms that may not be well known (e.g., axial coding, negative case analysis).

Nonuse of computer software is acceptable, software does not “do” qualitative analysis or necessarily ensure rigor. Reflexivity (the researcher’s role, possible bias, and influence on the research and interpretation) is encouraged.

(Table continues on next page)

at University of M

anitoba Libraries on O

ctober 24, 2011http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

The Gerontologist284

ReferencesEmlet, C. A., Tozay, S., & Raveis, V. H. (2011). I’m not going to die from

the AIDS: Resilience in aging with HIV disease. The Gerontologist, 51, 101–111. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq060.

Lambe, S., Cantwell, N., Islam, F., Horvath, K., & Jefferson, A. L. (2011). Perceptions, knowledge, incentives, and barriers of brain donation among African American elders enrolled in an Alzheimer’s research program. The Gerontologist, 51, 28–39. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq063.

Lawrence, V., Samsi, K., Banerjee, S., Morgan, C., & Murray, J. (2011). Threat to valued elements of life: The experience of dementia across three ethnic groups. The Gerontologist, 51, 39–50. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq073.

Schoenberg, N. E., & McAuley, W. J. (2007). Promoting qualitative research. The Gerontologist, 47, 576–577.

Schoenberg, N. E., Shenk, D., & Cart, K. S. (2007). Food for thought: Nourishing the publication of qualitative research. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26, 4–16. doi:10.1177/0733464806296938.

Section Standards Notes for authors Notes for reviewers

Finding/results Present themes, case studies, or other qualitative evidence answering research questions generally in a thick, contextualized manner including sample description and specific evidence for findings.

Avoid quantifying inappropriately, contextualize quotations, do not repeat quotes, results should be rich and novel. Be certain the data (e.g., quotes) substantiate or contribute to themes. Distinction should be drawn between findings and interpretation.

Numeric representations (N, %) are not necessarily included and may be inappropriate in some cases; rich description generally is hallmark; strong evidence should support findings.

Discussion Briefly summarize findings and offer interpretation: convergence with existing literature, link findings to theory and application, explain what is new about study results

Discussion section should relate to/draws from the results, explain next research steps, avoid vague statements about more research needed, and contain implications for enhancing older adults’ lives

The discussion should be logical and follow from the results (e.g., research that focuses on process should address process-related applications). Implications should be discussed.

Include a limitation section Comment on sample size, generalizability, and sources of bias

Intention of manuscript was not to provide population estimates or random stratified survey results

IRB = institutional review board; TG = The Gerontologist.

Table 1 (continued)

TG aims to facilitate qualitative authors’ adher-ence to prevailing research standards. For example, the enhanced word count (TG extends an extra 1,000 words for qualitative articles) allows researchers, whose data may not be appropriate for a tabular summary, to devote more space to pre-senting rich and contextualized data. The option for all authors to post supplemental material online encourages further explication of steps taken to enhance rigor, greater elaboration on the field set-ting, or provision of any additional information that does not fit into the confines of the word count.

At approximately 15%, the acceptance rate of qualitative manuscripts mirrors the overall accep-tance rate of the journal. To improve the likeli-hood that more qualitative works will be published in TG, we provide guidance for submitting authors and the reviewers evaluating qualitative research contributions. Table 1 provides a list, by no means comprehensive, of recommendations for qualita-tive authors and reviewers. This table also may be useful to all authors planning to submit their work to TG. We believe that qualitative investi-gations contribute critically to the accumulation of knowledge in research on aging. Well-executed and -described studies that meet prevailing stan-dards of research quality will continue to find a home in TG into the foreseeable future.

Nancy E. Schoenberg, PhD,* University of Kentucky

Edward A. Miller, PhD, MPA, University of Massachusetts, Boston

and Rachel Pruchno, PhD,UMDNJ-SOM

*Address correspondence to Nancy E. Schoenberg.

125 Medical Behavioral Science Building University of Kentucky

Lexington KY USA 40536-0086 E-mail: nesch@uky.edu

at University of M

anitoba Libraries on O

ctober 24, 2011http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from