Need a Topic/Title and Research Proposal outline in Power Point format.

Week 3: Qualitative

Data Analysis

Qualitative Data Analysis

Learning Objectives

· To discuss some of the theoretical models within which qualitative data can be analysed, and select the most appropriate one for a particular piece of research

· To understand the stages involved in qualitative data analysis (coding procedures and developing themes

· To assess how rigour can be maximised in qualitative data analysis

1.1 Introduction to Qualitative Data Analysis

You are probably familiar with the basic differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods based on the previous weeks and the materials provided and the different applications those methods can have in order to deal with the research questions posed.

Qualitative research is particularly good at answering the ‘why’, ‘what’ or ‘how’ questions, such as:

· “What are the perceptions of carers living with people with learning disability, as regards their own health needs?”

· “Why do students choose to study for the MSc in Research Methods through the online programme?

Qualitative researchers are not generally interested in the discovery of cause and effect relationships.

1.2 What do we mean by analysis?

· Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) is the range of processes and procedures whereby we move from the qualitative data that have been collected into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation of the people and situations we are investigating.

· QDA is usually based on an interpretative philosophy. The idea is to examine the meaningful and symbolic context of qualitative data

· A generous amount of words is created by interviews or observational data and needs to be described and summarised.

· The questions asked may require the researchers to seek relationships between various themes that have been identified, or to relate behaviour or ideas to biographical characteristics of respondents such as age or gender.

· Implications for policy or practice may be derived from the data, or interpretation sought of puzzling findings from previous studies.

· Ultimately theory could be developed and tested using advanced analytical techniques.

1.3 Approaches in Analysis

a) Deductive approach

· Using your research questions to group the data and then look for similarities and differences

· Used when time and resources are limited

· Used when qualitative research is a smaller component of a larger quantitative study

b) Inductive approach

· Used when qualitative research is a major design of the inquiry

· Using emergent framework to group the data and then look for relationships

In summary:

There are no ‘quick fix’ techniques in qualitative analysis (Lacey & Luff, 2007).

• There are probably as many different ways of analysing qualitative data as there are qualitative researchers doing it!

• It is argued that qualitative research is an interpretive and subjective exercise is intimately involved in the process, not aloof from it (Pope & Mays 2006).

However there are some theoretical approaches to choose from and in this week we will explore a basic one. In addition there are some common processes, no matter which approach you take. Analysis of qualitative data usually goes through some or all of the following stages (though the order may vary):

· Familiarisation with the data through review, reading, listening etc

· Transcription of tape recorded material

· Organisation and indexing of data for easy retrieval and identification

· Anonymising of sensitive data

· Coding (may be called indexing)

· Identification of themes

· Re-coding

· Development of provisional categories

· Exploration of relationships between categories

· Refinement of themes and categories

· Development of theory and incorporation of pre-existing knowledge

· Testing of theory against the data

· Report writing, including excerpts from original data if appropriate (e.g. quotes from interviews)

Adapted from Pacey and Luff (2009, p. 6-7)

1.4 What do you want to get out of your data?

It is not always necessary to go through all the stages above, but it is suggested that some of them are necessary in order to go in-depth in your analysis!

Let’s take an example based on the research question provided above about the health needs of the carers:

Research question:

“What are the perceptions of carers living with people with learning disability, as regards their own health needs?”

· You may be interested in finding out the community services that needs to be provided in order the perceived needs of the carers to be met.

· You might also be interested to know what kind of services are needed or are valued by most of the carers.

· Maybe several respondents mention that they struggle with depression and loneliness

· One approach is to simply count the number of times a particular word or concept occurs

(e.g. loneliness) in a narrative. Such approach is called content analysis. It is not purely qualitative since the qualitative data can then be categorised quantitatively and will be subjected to statistical analysis

· Another approach is the thematic analysis from which we would want to go deeper than this. All units of data (e.g. sentences or paragraphs) referring to loneliness could be given a particular code, extracted and examined in more detail. Do participants talk of being lonely even when others are present? Are there particular times of day or week when they experience loneliness? In what terms do they express loneliness? Are those who speak of loneliness are also those who experience depress? Such questions can lead to themes which could eventually be developed such as ‘lonely but never alone’.

· Finally, for theoretical analysis such as grounded theory we go further in depth. For example, you may have developed theories when you have been analysing the data with regard to depression as being associated with perceived loss of a ‘normal’ child/spouse. The disability may be attributed to an accident, or to some failure of medical care, without which the person cared for would still be ‘normal’. You may be able to test this emerging theory against existing theories of loss in the literature, or against further analysis of the data. You may even search for ‘deviant cases’ that is data which seems to contradict your theory, and seek to modify your theory to take account of this new finding. This process is sometimes known as ‘analytic induction’, and is use to build and test emerging theory. (Lacey & Luff,

2009, p.8)

In the following sections we will explore two approaches for qualitative data analysis: a) grounded theory approach and b) thematic analysis.

1.5 Grounded Theory

· Glaser & Strauss (1967)

· Aim = to generate/discover a theory

· Systematic

· Based on observations

· Focus on social processes

Developed out of research by sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967). Glaser and Strauss were concerned to outline an inductive method of qualitative research which would allow social theory to be generated systematically from data. As such theories should be ‘grounded’ in rigorous empirical research, rather than to be produced based in the abstract.

Grounded theory is a methodology; it is a way of thinking about and conceptualising data. It is an approach to research as a whole and as such can use a range of different methods.

Grounded Theory analysis is inductive, in that the resulting theory ‘emerges’ from the data through a process of rigorous and structured analysis.

1.6 Procedure and the Rules of Grounded Theory approach

1. Data Collection and Analysis are Interrelated Processes. In grounded theory, the analysis begins as soon as the first bit of data is collected.

2.Concepts Are the Basic Units of Analysis. A theorist works with conceptualizations of data, not the actual data per se. Theories can't be built with actual incidents or activities as observed or reported; that is, from "raw data." The incidents, events, and happenings are taken as, or analyzed as, potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels. If a respondent says to the researcher, "Each day I spread my activities over the morning, resting between shaving and bathing," then the researcher might label this phenomenon as "pacing." As the researcher encounters other incidents, and when after comparison to the first, they appear to resemble the same phenomena, then these, too, can be labeled as "pacing." Only by comparing incidents and naming like phenomena with the same term can a theorist accumulate the basic units for theory. In the grounded theory approach such concepts become more numerous and more abstract as the analysis continues

3. Categories Must Be Developed and Related. Concepts that pertain to the same phenomenon may be grouped to form categories. Not all concepts become categories. Categories are higher in level and more abstract than the concepts they represent. They are generated through the same analytic process of making comparisons to highlight similarities and differences that is used to produce lower level concepts. Categories are the "cornerstones" of a developing theory. They provide the means by which a theory can be integrated.

4. Sampling in Grounded Theory Proceeds on Theoretical Grounds. Sampling proceeds not in terms of drawing samples of specific groups of individuals, units of time, and so on, but in terms of concepts, their properties, dimensions, and variations.

5. Analysis Makes Use of Constant Comparisons. As an incident is noted, it should be compared against other incidents for similarities and differences. The resulting concepts are labelled as such, and over time, they are compared and grouped as previously described.

6. Patterns and Variations Must Be Accounted For. The data must be examined for regularity and for an understanding of where that regularity is not apparent.

7. Process Must Be Built Into the Theory. In grounded theory, process has several meanings. Process analysis can mean breaking a phenomenon down into stages, phases, or steps.

Process may also denote purposeful action/interaction that is not necessarily progressive, but changes in response to prevailing conditions

8. Writing Theoretical Memos Is an Integral Part of Doing Grounded Theory. Since the analyst cannot readily keep track of all the categories, properties, hypotheses, and generative questions that evolve from the analytical process, there must be a system for doing so. The use of memos constitutes such a system. Memos are not simply about "ideas."

(adapted from Corbin and Strauss, 1990, pp.7-10)

1.7 Thematic Analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.79)

· Flexible

· Interview data-Categorised into themes

· Surface analysis

· Reflects reality

· Acceptance of what is said

Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organises and describes your data set in (rich) detail. However, it also often goes further than this, and interprets various aspects of the research topic (Boyatzis, 1998).

· Boyatzis (1998) defines the 'unit of coding' as the most basic segment or element of the raw data of information that can be assessed in a meaningful way regarding the phenomenon (pxi)

· A good thematic code 'captures the qualitative richness of the phenomenon' (Boyatzis 1998, p.31) and has 5 elements:

· A label

· A definition of when the theme occurs

· A description of how to know when the theme occurs

· A description of any qualifications or exclusions to the theme

· Examples to eliminate possible confusion when looking at the theme

Braun and Clarke (2006) identify some "potential pitfalls" to be avoided in qualitative analysis:

1. A failure to actually analyse the data

2. Using data collection questions as themes that are reported

3. A weak or unconvincing analysis

4. A mismatch between the data and the analytic claims that are made about it.

Phases of thematic analysis (inductive and deductive) (Braun & Clarke, 2006)

to each potential theme (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006)

1.8 Example of qualitative data analysis using thematic analysis

Question: “how do you feel about your student accommodation?”

Participants: 10 Master’s students living in student accommodation an open question

• You have coded three data segments using the code ‘satisfactory accommodation’. You have defined ‘satisfactory’ as instances when students indicate that their accommodation generally meets their needs, but they report mixed views, balancing positive opinions with critical comments. You have decided not to include views which are almost exclusively positive or negative. The data segments you have coded as ‘satisfactory’ are:

‘It’s okay – it’s not my home, my house at home in my country, but I have the things I need, desk, bed, arm chair, clean and warm, not damp or anything.’ (Student 3)

‘It could be nicer – the decoration is a bit old, and it can be a little bit noisy at night sometimes – but overall it’s fine just for students. When I graduate and get a job, I want to rent a more modern apartment, fashionable with lots of technology.’ (Student 9)

‘The only thing is it’s a bit small… I can’t invite all my friends to my room to watch television or chat, so we have to go to the coffee shop, cinema… it’s a bit

expensive always going out. That’s the main problem, but I quite like it, it’s quite good, I feel quite safe.’ (Student 2)

Is it okay to say ‘3 students reported that their accommodation was satisfactory’?

In qualitative studies, we are interested in individual’s feelings, thoughts, beliefs and unique contributions. It is ok to say that 3 students reported that about their accommodation.

1.9 Producing the report of the data

Several students suggested their accommodation, while having some limitations, was generally satisfactory, being ‘okay’ (student 2) or ‘fine for students’ (student 9). Their accommodation appeared to meet many of their needs, for instance, student 3 commented ‘I have the things I need, a desk, bed, arm chair, clean and warm, not damp or anything’, while student 2 reported she ‘feels quite safe’. However, they also noted some limitations, for example, about the limited space: ‘it’s a bit small… I can’t invite all my friends to my room’ (student 2), and the décor: ‘it could be nicer – the decoration is a bit old’ (student 9).

Nonetheless, the students seemed to be quite accepting of these limitations – notably, student

2 still said ‘I quite like it, it’s quite good’ even though she found it quite expensive going out to see friends because her room was too small to invite them over.

There was also some suggestion that the students tended to think of their accommodation as temporary; student 3 is clear ‘it is not my home, my house’, while student 9 is already planning to rent a more modern apartment which suits his tastes better on graduating. This might be considered to have made them more accepting of their accommodation’s limitations, as long as their accommodation generally meets their main needs as students.

Summary:

· The words in bold and underlined fond indicate how we suggest possible conclusions from the data as in qualitative research we talk about interpretations and how ‘reality’ is constructed by other people’s point of view.

· Therefore we tend not to say that e.g. ‘students are not satisfied’ we prefer to report ‘students seem not to be satisfied’

1.10 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

· The IPA has conceptually derived from the philosophical principles of phenomenology that views a person’s own perception of the world as primary.

· To preserve fully that validation of people’s perceptions of the world.

· Any attempt to report on another individual’s experience will be necessarily be distorted.

· The reflexive role of the researcher in the interpretation is to the fore.

IPA DATA and interpretation

· Raw data for IPA

· Interview transcripts

· Diaries

· Autobiographies

· IPA interests in mental process and tries to record what is real in participant's mind.

· Knowledge is uniquely constructed by researcher.

· Analysis involves identifying recurring themes and make sense together.

IPA steps (Smith, 2008)

· Read the transcripts several times and note associations or an early interpretation.

· Identify themes

· Re-order and organise themes into more primary themes.

· Draw a table of organised themes with best clustering and hierarchy.

· IPA approach can be reflected by thematic analysis.

References

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3, 77-101.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13, 3-21.

Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E., (2006). Demonstrating rigour using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5,80-92.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Weidenfield & Nicolson, London, 1-19.

Lacey A. and Luff D. (2009) Qualitative Research Analysis. The NIHR RDS for the East Midlands / Yorkshire & the Humber.

Further reading:

Aronson, J. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The qualitative report, 1-3.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 77-101.

Boyce, C. and Neale, P., 2006. Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input.

Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 359-380.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13, 3-21.

Doody, O., & Noonan, M. (2013). Preparing and conducting interviews to collect data. Nurse researcher, 20, 28-32.

Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E.(2006). Demonstrating rigour using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5, 80-92.

Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1-10.

Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2001). Qualitative data analysis (pp. 320-357). Sheffield: Trent Focus.

Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach. Nurse researcher, 18, 52-62.

Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities.

International journal of social research methodology, 3, 103-119.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative research, 17, 273-85.