10.17 Similar issues to those raised above are also relevant when synthesising qualitative findings, such as those that might be collected through a process evaluation. Process evaluations are often designed to capture the experiences of different people, areas, or institutions for example, subject to a policy, so that these differences (and similarities) can provide powerful information about its implementation and an explanation for observed impacts. However, it is important to be confident that any differences observed through qualitative research (either in the same or in separate studies) are due to actual differences in the people, groups or areas being studied rather than being the result of shortcomings in the research itself. This means that it is essential that qualitative research is designed, conducted and analysed in a way that allows confidence in the robustness of its findings. Process evaluation, action research and case studies are discussed in further detail in Chapter 8.
10.18 There are a range of approaches to assessing the quality of qualitative research ranging from using criteria similar to that used to assess quantitative data (external and internal reliability and validity) to ones specifically designed for qualitative data (credibility, dependability, confirmability and authenticity). There is a useful discussion of this in Bryman (2001)4. Key questions to consider when reviewing the quality of qualitative research are provided in Box 10.B.
• If wanting to compare findings within or between studies, have similar methods and approaches been used to make this comparison credible? • When the research has been undertaken by a number of people, do different members of the research team agree on the observed results and findings? • Is there a good match between the observed findings, the conclusions drawn, and/ or hypotheses developed? • Is there sufficient data to allow readers to assess whether findings can be transferred to different settings or times? • Has the research been undertaken in line with best practise research guidance, and have the findings been triangulated via different methods/ data sources? • Are the methods and approaches used reported transparently (for example, through the provision of interview schedules, or observation proformas)? • Are the views of all participants of the policy presented clearly and fairly? |
10.19 Once a judgement has been made that findings are valid then data from qualitative research can be presented, highlighting the different sources of this data, and signposting any differences and/ or similarities between different research participants and areas. These similarities and differences are key issues in comprehending how a policy was implemented and delivered and so the more richly they can be described and explained, the better the policy can be understood (and compared to previous research on the policy or similar policies). This doesn't mean that the findings should necessarily be reported in a long and detailed manner. The key issue will be to answer the original research questions highlighting the different or similar experiences of the policy and explaining why these might have occurred. Where it is useful to provide particularly detailed accounts these can be annexed or presented in a technical report.
_____________________________________________________________________
4 Social Research Methods. Bryman. 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press