This essay aims to examine the practice of secondary analysis on qualitative data in terms of barriers to overcome and advantages of its practice. Over the last decades, archives of qualitative data have become widely accessible to research-es and there has been a smaller revolution in the practice of secondary analysis on such data. (Seale, 2004) There are both practical and methodological ad-vantages for researchers to use data that has been collected by others in order to pursue new research. However, this approach is not unproblematic. One of the most prominent features of qualitative research is its emphasis on contextual understanding and data- generating process between the researcher and partici-pants, which is to some extent lost when secondary analysis is pursued. The con-textual problem translates into methodological and ethical issues, which needs to be acknowledged and resolved. Furthermore, there are practical barriers, which surrounds the same pillars of context, ethics and methodology.
Initially, I will define key concepts of qualitative research and secondary analysis on qualitative data. Second, I will identify certain limitations and barriers to pur-sue secondary analysis in the order of contextual information barriers, methodo-logical barriers and ethical issues. Third, I will briefly discuss how such barriers can be overcome and why researchers should pursue secondary analysis. Doing so, I will look at using research in the pilot stage, economic reasons and method-ological advancements.
Qualitative research involves the methods of case- studies, in- depth interviews, text/discourse analysis and historical analysis, focusing on a few cases with the primary purpose of gain in- depth understanding of the resea...
... middle of paper ...
...tive issues’ Sociological Research Online 15:1
Heaton, J. (2008) ’Secondary analysis of Qualitative Data: An Overwiev’ Historical Social Research 33:3 pp. 33-45
Hinds, P.,Vogel, R., and Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997) ’The possibilities and pitfalls of doing secondary analysis of a qualitative data set’ Qualitative Health Research 7:3 pp. 408-424
Irwin, S and Winterton, M (2011) ‘Debates in Qualitative Secondary Analysis: Critical Reflections’ ESRC: A Timescapes Working Paper No. 4
Mason, J. (2007) ’Re-using” qualitative data: on the merits of an investigative epistemology’ Sociological Research Online 12:3
Mauthner, N.S., Parry, O. and Backett-Milburn, K. (1998) ’The data are out there, or are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data’ Sociology 32:4 pp. 733 – 745
Moore, N. (2007) ’(Re)Using qualitative data?’ Sociological Research Online 12:3
In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary determinant of both data collection and analysis (Lichtman, 2013). The researcher determines what data to gather and filters it through his or her perception of the situation according to his experience, background, and knowledge.
The three research methodology paradigms are quantitative research, qualitative research and mixed research. Each of these paradigms uses different methods for research and collects different types of data. A quantitative research relies primarily on the collection of quantitative data while a qualitative research relies on the collection of qualitative data. A mixed research involves mixing quantitative and qualitative methods. As the research for the study, “Mike: An Illustrative Case Study”, used a qualitative methodology, characteristics of qualitative research and how they relate to the particular study will be the focus of this review.
The type of data collection for a qualitative research study depends on the research design. The qualitative design itself originates out of the disciplines and flow throughout the process of research (Creswell, 2014). Creswell (2014) recommends narrative, phenomenology, ethnography, case study, and grounded theory as common qualitative research methods. These were recommended because of they are popular across the social and health and science research studies. Hays and Woods (2011) asserted that selecting a research tradition congruent with one's research orientation and study purpose, and at the same time, infusing it in all phases of qualitative inquiry, is one of the key criterions for trustworthiness of the research results. Hays and Woods (2011) recommends six qualitative research traditions, including ground theory, phenomenology, consensual qualitative research, ethnography, narratology, and participative action research. Indeed, while there are additional qualitative research methods available, scholars have identified these six qualitative traditions consistently or identified them as emerging and common methods of qualitative research (Hays & Woods, 2011).
Do to the nature of the study four types of data, qualitative inquiry frameworks were considered; Ethnography, Grounded Theory, Realism and System Theory (Patton, 2015);
While qualitative researchers are more anxious with comprehension then elucidation this is not always the case. Fundamentally suggested that a thorough understanding requires the researcher to have direct contact with the social reality to the point of actually taking part. This is often stressed in the ethnographic literature and opens up the issue of whether the researcher can be or is an 'insider' or an 'outsider' or some mixture of the two. Qualitative research does aspire to
There has been a debate over which tradition of methodology, qualitative or quantitative, can provide a better explanation while conducting social science research. Qualitative research provides in-depth case-by-case studies while quantitative, generates broader arguments accommodating a large number of cases. Many social scientists may be naturally qualitative analysts and their expertise could lie predominantly in such field (Mahoney and Goertz, 2006). Quantitative analysis, on the other hand, is preferred when the researchers want to observe common patterns among several different cases. However, both quantitative and qualitative analyses ask questions differently which may lead to different explanations, although they may be examining
Qualitative research has gained significant recognition in the social science sphere with its holistic and purposeful pursuit in illuminating new areas for research lacking through quantitative research. (Carey, 2012; Cleary, Horsfall, & Hayter, 2014; Reeves, Kuper, & Hodges, 2008; Stevenson, Britten, Barry, Barber, & Bradley, 2000; Thyer, 2012). Qualitative research uses a variety of methodologies to explore an individual’s inner world, expand our understanding of a social phenomenon, and advance and discover new theories (Carey, 2012; Fortune, Reid, & Miller, 2013; Saldana, 2011; Thyer, 2012). Stevenson (2000) describes qualitative research as an in-depth investigation into the inner world of reasoning, decision-making and meaning. Furthermore, qualitative research takes into account the context and history that shapes presented information and ventures to understand participant’s experiences, thoughts, opinions, and feelings towards their social reality (Ivey, 2012; Nielsen, 2011; Thyer, 2012).
There are two types of research that can be conducted in research studies, these are qualitative and quantitative (Newman, 2011). Qualitative research is a process that uses detailed oriented methodology that tries to achieve a profound knowledge or understanding of specific incident and circumstance, wh...
Quantitative and qualitative research methods are the two central methods for conducting research. Although there are both advantages and disadvantages to each of these research methods, many researchers decide to merely utilize one of the methods, without exploring the other method at all. This is a problem as these researchers only get to analyze their research from one point of view rather than from differing points of view. In other words, these researchers will solely rely on numbers and statistics or solely rely on interviews and observations. The researchers Bonta and Gendreau are open to utilizing both research methods, however, instead of simply using quantitative research methods. Conversely, the researchers Roberts and Jackson are
Reviewing the previous qualitative studies, the interview has become one of key research approaches (along with field observations and document analysis) for gathering data that is closely conducted by qualitative researchers. (Kvale, 1996; Brinkmann, 2008; Seidman, 2006). As Gubrium & Holstein (2003) suggest that the qualitative interviews are able to assist researchers to investigate the discovery-oriented enquiries and the increased understanding of subjectivities in the researching fields of social science, media, health care, etc.
Qualitative and quantitative methods allow researchers to investigate, explore and inquire the nature of the phenomenon being studied. It is important that the researcher develops a clear understanding of the problem and design a plan to investigate it (Cresswell, 1998, para. 1). There are a variety of research methods; nevertheless, it is important to consider which research method is appropriate for the study. Qualitative research focuses on human experiences while quantitative research relies on numbers, measurements, and testing. Nevertheless, qualitative and quantitative methods use similar approaches to conduct research and collect data. For example, observations and interviews are approaches used in both research designs; however, the approaches are used and viewed otherwise. This will be discussed later in the paper.
Thematic analysis is espoused to be the foundational approach to qualitative analysis and methods (Saunders et al., 2016 as stated in Braun and Clarke, 2006: 78) and it is a useful method used to identify and analyse the order and patterns of qualitative data (Attride-Stirling, 2001). Qualitative research method depicts the correlation that exists between data and events, creating the pictorial representation of what one thinks a given data says (Saunders et al., 2016). They also opined that, qualitative data analysis is cogent, interactive and iterative. Also, Joana and Jill (2011) and Saunders et al (2016) postulate that, qualitative research brings meanings from words and images as opposed to numbers. However, despite its robustness and rigour of its application, it is skewed more to the interpretivist ideologies since researchers draw conclusion from participants and the hypothesis being forecasted (Joana and Jill, 2011; Saunders et al., 2016).
focused on the key qualitative research methods. For each article review, a brief description, guided by Myers (2013), and a critique, guided Pratt (2009), is provided. A summary of the five articles identifying the research method, data collection technique, data analysis approach and critique is provided in Table 1. The narrative review of each article coupled with figures and tables to organize and visualize thoughts (Pratt, 2009) follows the summary table.
This section will include the entire approach or philosophy of the researcher used to collect, analyze and interpret the data in this research and involves the researcher’s assumptions related to Ontological, Epistemological, Axiological, and Methodological assumption towards the research. The research will also reflect constructivism perspective as realities will be constructed by participants rather than what objectively observed by the researcher.
Quantitative and qualitative research are two methods to gather and synthesize data. When discussing these two research methods, one might ask what are the differences? If so, this paper answers the questions surrounding the differences including what the research involves. The purpose of the research can dictate which method would be the most beneficial. Qualitative research is open-ended whereas; quantitative research is more structured. The purpose of this paper is to describe the characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research and the application within an article.