Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Enhancing the quality of a GT project through
interviewing the self
A methodological development
Background
• Research focuses on how course leaders in a small-
specialist HEI experience using evidence in their role.
• ...
Researcher position
• Employed at Writtle University College
• Course leader / senior lecturer
• Evidence-based Vet. Med. ...
Let’s focus on the following
• What does quality mean in qualitative research?
• What does quality mean in a grounded theo...
Quality in qualitative research?
• Quality determined by trustworthiness and rigour
(Gasson, 2004)
 Trustworthiness is th...
Rigour in GT
• Glaser (1992): Fit, work, relevance, modifiability,
parsimony and scope
• Gasson (2004): Confirmability, de...
Rigour in GT
• Amalgamating these criteria into a set of questions to be
asked of a GT study (van Veggel, 2021)
Criticisms of grounded theory
• Is the theory really grounded?
• Can GT really be objective?
• What about researcher preco...
Insider bias/preconception
• As an insider-researcher you are a source of bias
• Biased research justification
• Biased re...
Reflexivity in insider research
• Reflexivity is the examination of one’s own beliefs, judgements and
practices during the...
Tension between reflexivity and GT
• Not all GT is the same (Levers, 2013)
• Role of the researcher in GT
• Researcher mus...
Purpose & practice of self-interview
• Asking yourself the same questions you ask your participants will
allow you to anal...
Purpose & practice of self-interview
• Ask an experienced interviewer to use your interview
schedule to interview you.
• E...
Examples
• I found that having to explain my thoughts made it easier
to analyse them reflexively and consider them purposi...
Contribution to knowledge
• Pragmatically, process to address the role of the researcher should be somewhere
inbetween
• H...
Acknowledgements
This work is part-funded through a Writtle University College Learning and
Development Fund Grant
I’d lik...
Questions?
Thank you!
References
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd edition...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

0

Share

Download to read offline

Enhancing the quality of a GT project through interviewing the self - a methodological development

Download to read offline

Presentation delivered at a Queens University Health Science community of practice seminar on 24 July 2021.

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Enhancing the quality of a GT project through interviewing the self - a methodological development

  1. 1. Enhancing the quality of a GT project through interviewing the self A methodological development
  2. 2. Background • Research focuses on how course leaders in a small- specialist HEI experience using evidence in their role. • Limited evidence currently exists (van Veggel & Howlett (2018)) • Building evidence-base from scratch → grounded theory
  3. 3. Researcher position • Employed at Writtle University College • Course leader / senior lecturer • Evidence-based Vet. Med. methodologist • Insider researcher • Interviewing colleagues in similar roles • Colleagues with more and less experience • Deliver EBP staff development for colleagues • Outsider researcher • EdD from external institution • Only qualitative researcher in institution
  4. 4. Let’s focus on the following • What does quality mean in qualitative research? • What does quality mean in a grounded theory context? • How is quality affected in GT research? • How is interviewing-the-self useful? • How does one interview-the-self?
  5. 5. Quality in qualitative research? • Quality determined by trustworthiness and rigour (Gasson, 2004)  Trustworthiness is the conceptual soundness which allows evaluation of value of research  Credibility → Does the data reflect the findings? (also covers researcher influence)  Transferability → How well does your theory transfer to another context  Dependability → Can the process be confirmed  Confirmability → Can someone else get similar outcomes when given your dataset?
  6. 6. Rigour in GT • Glaser (1992): Fit, work, relevance, modifiability, parsimony and scope • Gasson (2004): Confirmability, dependability, authenticity and transferability • Cooney (2011): Credibility, auditability, fittingness
  7. 7. Rigour in GT • Amalgamating these criteria into a set of questions to be asked of a GT study (van Veggel, 2021)
  8. 8. Criticisms of grounded theory • Is the theory really grounded? • Can GT really be objective? • What about researcher preconception? • Does being an insider researcher make this different?
  9. 9. Insider bias/preconception • As an insider-researcher you are a source of bias • Biased research justification • Biased research design • Biased data collection • Biased data analysis • Biased outcome reporting … as long as it is addressed appropriately. In GT, this bias is a form of preconception... this is not a bad thing…
  10. 10. Reflexivity in insider research • Reflexivity is the examination of one’s own beliefs, judgements and practices during the research process and their influence on the research • Reflexive research practice develops transparency (Engward & Davis 2015) • As an insider, how do you as a source of bias affect the process and the project? • Reflexive practice can enhance credibility (Hall and Callery (2001 • Once recognised, how do you acknowledge this explicitly? • Normally, this is done in a narrative, somewhat disconnected way
  11. 11. Tension between reflexivity and GT • Not all GT is the same (Levers, 2013) • Role of the researcher in GT • Researcher must remain open to patterns identified and of the impact of their own preconceptions • Process managed differently (O’Connor et al., 2018) • Charmaz and Corbyn & Strauss advocate reflexivity • Glaser says reflexivity is not necessary as GT process deals with this
  12. 12. Purpose & practice of self-interview • Asking yourself the same questions you ask your participants will allow you to analyse your answers through a reflexive lens • This process will allow a critical analysis of researcher bias, directly linked to the research process, and make it explicitly clear how this bias has affected the research • Interviewing-the-self is currently not used in qualitative research for this purpose • I am developing it as a contribution to grounded theory methodology
  13. 13. Purpose & practice of self-interview • Ask an experienced interviewer to use your interview schedule to interview you. • Experienced: better data, make interview their own • External interviewer: prevents prediction → variations in style • Analyse your answers to questions through a reflexive lens • Use the analysis to explain your researcher bias
  14. 14. Examples • I found that having to explain my thoughts made it easier to analyse them reflexively and consider them purposively • I realised through reflexively analysis I was more sensitive to negative aspects of participants roles which resonated with me  Easier to develop codes and concepts • My insiderness led to assumptions of how participants experience course leadership and projected this onto them
  15. 15. Contribution to knowledge • Pragmatically, process to address the role of the researcher should be somewhere inbetween • How to be reflexive in GT is not clear (Engward & Davis, 2015) • Critical analysis of self interview allows reflexivity and acknowledgement of bias/preconception (Charmaz 2014) • Self-interview is “just another source of data” (Glaser, 2007) • It is an explicit method to increase research transparency, which leads to better research practice, which leads to increased credibility.
  16. 16. Acknowledgements This work is part-funded through a Writtle University College Learning and Development Fund Grant I’d like to thank Dr Sally Goldspink for supporting the self- interview process and the constructive methodological discussions.
  17. 17. Questions? Thank you!
  18. 18. References • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Cooney, A. (2011) Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher. 18(4), 17–22. • Edgware, H. & Davis, G. (2015) Being reflexive in qualitative grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 71(7), 1530-1538. DOI: 10.1111/jan.12653. • Engward, H., Davis, G. (2015) Being reflexive in qualitative grounded theory: discussion and application of a model of reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 71(7), 1530–1538. • Gasson, S. (2004) Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In M. E. Whitman & A. B. Woszczynski, eds. The handbook of information systems research. London: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 79–102. • Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley: Sociology Press. • Glaser, B.G. (2007) All Is Data. Grounded Theory Review. 6(2). • Hall, W.A., Callery, P. (2001) Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative health research. 11(2), 257–272. • Levers M-J.D. (2013) Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open 3,4. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013517243. • O’Connor et al. (2018) An exploration of key issues in the debate between classic and constructivist grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review. 17(1).b • van Veggel, N. and Howlett, P. (2018) Course leadership in small-specialist UK higher education - a review. International Journal of Educational Management, 32, 7, 1174–1183. • van Veggel, N. (2021) Using Grounded Theory to Investigate Evidence Use by Course Leaders in Small-Specialist UK HEIs. Preprints, in press.

Presentation delivered at a Queens University Health Science community of practice seminar on 24 July 2021.

Views

Total views

80

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

14

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×