Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.pptx

Standards in Reporting Qualitative Research

1. Guidelines and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) Summarized by Dr. Maribel R. Gaite

2. Core Questions What are some general guidelines and tips for writing a qualitative study? What are the essential components in the structure of a qualitative thesis or dissertation proposal and final paper, and qualitative journal article? How should the interpretation of the results be reported in a qualitative journal article based on the qualitative design used?

3. R emember : There is no one qualitative method, but rather a number of research approaches which fall under the umbrella of ‘qualitative methods’. The various social science disciplines tend to have different conventions on best practice in qualitative research. However there are some general guidance for the writing and assessment of papers which present qualitative data (either alone or in combination with quantitative methods). General principles of good practice for all research will also apply.

4. General Guidelines for Writing Qualitative Research

5. Fitness for purpose Are the methods of the research appropriate to the nature of the question(s) being asked, i.e.: Does the research seek to understand social processes or social structures &/or to illuminate subjective experiences or meanings? Are the settings, groups or individuals being examined of a type which cannot be pre-selected, or the possible outcomes not specified (or hypothesized) in advance?

6. Methodology and methods All papers must include a dedicated methods section which specifies, as appropriate, the sample recruitment strategy, sample size, and analytical strategy.

7. Principles of selection Qualitative research is often based on or includes non-probability sampling. The unit(s) of research may include one or a combination of people, events, institutions, samples of natural behavior, conversations, written and visual material, etc. The selection of these should be theoretically justified e.g. it should be made clear how respondents were selected.

8. Principles of selection There should be a rationale for the sources of the data ( e.g respondents/participants, settings, documents) Consideration should be given to whether the sources of data ( e.g people, organizations, documents) were unusual in some important way. Any limitations of the data should be discussed (such as non response, refusal to take part).

9. The research process In most papers there should be consideration of The access process How data were collected and recorded Who collected the data When the data were collected How the research was explained to respondents/participants

10. Research ethics Details of formal ethical approval (i.e. IRB, Research Ethics Committee) should be stated in the main body of the paper. If authors were not required to obtain ethical approval (as is the case in some countries) or unable to obtain attain ethical approval (as sometimes occurs in resource-poor settings) they should explain this. Anonymize this information as appropriate in the manuscript, and give the information when asked during submission. Procedures for securing informed consent should be provided. Any ethical concerns that arose during the research should be discussed.

11. Analysis The process of analysis should be made as transparent as possible (notwithstanding the conceptual and theoretical creativity that typically characterizes qualitative research). How was the analysis conducted? How were themes, concepts and categories generated from the data? Whether analysis was computer assisted (and, if so, how)? Who was involved in the analysis and in what manner?

12. Analysis Assurance of analytic rigor. For example Steps taken to guard against selectivity in the use of data Triangulation Inter-rater reliability Member and expert checking The researcher’s own position should clearly be stated. For example, have they examined their own role, possible bias, and influence on the research (reflexivity)?

13. Presentation of Findings Consideration of Context . The research should be clearly contextualized. Relevant information about the settings and respondents/participants should be supplied. The phenomena under study should be integrated into their social context (rather than being abstracted or de-contextualized). Any particular/unique influences should be identified and discussed.

14. Presentation of Findings Presentation of data. Quotations, field notes, and other data where appropriate should be identified in a way which enables the reader to judge the range of evidence being used. Distinctions between the data and their interpretation should be clear. The iteration between data and explanations of the data (theory generation) should be clear. Sufficient original evidence should be presented to satisfy the reader of the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions (validity). There should be adequate consideration of cases or evidence which might refute the conclusions.

15. Qualitative Research Report

16. General Writing Tips ( Bazeley , 2017) If you keep notes/reflections/conclusions etc. under topic headings during analysis (regardless of source or method used), your analysis and your writing are likely to become integrated. What was your purpose? What question(s) were you asking? What is the take home message for the reader for this publication? How does it fit into the overall context of the study? What data do you have to support this message?

17. Framing Substantive Writing • Focus on the message, not on the method • Consider the audience • Needs a clear and progressive structure – What does the reader already need to know to understand this point? – What do they need to know now to understand what’s coming next? – (What are the conventions within your discipline?) ( Bazeley , 2017)

18. Title Concise description of the nature and topic of the study Identifying the study as qualitative or indicating the approach (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory) or data collection methods (e.g., interview, focus group) is recommended.

19. Abstract Summary of key elements of the study using the abstract format of the intended publication; typically includes background, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions

20. Hourglass Model for a Research Abstract and Article Abstract Introduction ⅕ = 50 Words Methods ⅕ = 50 Words Results ⅖ = 100 Words Discussion ⅕ = 50 Words Article Introduction ⅕ = 500 Words Methods ⅕ = 500 Words Results ⅖ = 1000 Words Discussion ⅕ = 500 Words Overarching Content Specific Context Rationale Prompting Research Objectives Research Design Data Collection Data Analysis Paragraph 1 Findings Paragraph 2 Findings Paragraph 3 Findings Paragraph 4 Findings Paragraph 5 Findings Discussion of Findings Field Specific Implications Limitations Broader Implications of the Study Adapted from Fetters, 2020

21. Introduction Description and significance of the problem/phenomenon studied; Review of relevant theory and empirical work; problem statement Purpose of the study and specific objectives or questions

22. Methods Qualitative approach and research paradigm. Qualitative approach (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenology, narrative research) and guiding theory if appropriate; identifying the research paradigm (e.g., postpositivist, constructivist/ interpretivist) is also recommended; rationale

23. Methods The rationale should briefly discuss the justification for choosing that theory, approach, method, or technique rather than other options available, the assumptions and limitations implicit in those choices, and how those choices influence study conclusions and transferability. As appropriate, the rationale for several items might be discussed together

24. Methods Qualitative approach and research paradigm. Qualitative approach (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenology, narrative research) and guiding theory if appropriate; identifying the research paradigm (e.g., postpositivist, constructivist/ interpretivist) is also recommended; rationale

25. Methods Researcher characteristics and reflexivity . Researchers’ characteristics that may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications/experience, relationship with participants, assumptions, and/or presuppositions; potential or actual interaction between researchers’ characteristics and the research questions, approach, methods, results, and/or transferability

26. Context Setting/site and salient contextual elements and characteristics; rationale

27. Sampling Strategy How and why research participants, documents, or events were selected; criteria for deciding when no further sampling was necessary (e.g., sampling saturation); rationale

28. Ethical issues pertaining to human subjects Documentation of approval by an appropriate ethics review board and participant consent, or explanation for lack thereof; other confidentiality and data security issues

29. Data Collection Methods Types of data collected; details of data collection procedures including (as appropriate) start and stop dates of data collection and analysis, iterative process, triangulation of sources/methods, and modification of procedures in response to evolving study findings; rationale

30. Data collection instruments and technologies Description of instruments (e.g., interview guides, questionnaires) and devices (e.g., audio recorders) used for data collection; if/how the instrument(s) changed over the course of the study

31. Units of Study Number and relevant characteristics of participants, documents, or events included in the study; level of participation (could be reported in results)

32. Data processing Methods for processing data prior to and during analysis, including transcription, data entry, data management and security, verification of data integrity, data coding, and anonymization/ deidentification of excerpts

33. Data analysis Process by which inferences, themes, etc., were identified and developed, including the researchers involved in data analysis; usually references a specific paradigm or approach; rationale

34. Techniques to enhance trustworthiness Techniques to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis (e.g., member checking, audit trail, triangulation); rationale

35. Results/Findings Synthesis and interpretation . Main findings (e.g., interpretations, inferences, and themes); might include development of a theory or model, or integration with prior research or theory Links to empirical data . Evidence (e.g., quotes, field notes, text excerpts, photographs) to substantiate analytic findings

36. Discussion Integration with prior work, implications, transferability, and contribution(s) to the field . Short summary of main findings; explanation of how findings and conclusions connect to, support, elaborate on, or challenge conclusions of earlier scholarship; discussion of scope of application/ generalizability; identification of unique contribution(s) to scholarship in a discipline or field

37. Limitations Trustworthiness and limitations of findings

38. Conflicts of interest Potential sources of influence or perceived influence on study conduct and conclusions; how these were managed

39. Funding Sources of funding and other support; role of funders in data collection, interpretation, and reporting

40. The worst thing you write is better than the best thing you have not written. Anonymous

41. References O’Brien, Bridget C. PhD; Harris, Ilene B. PhD; Beckman, Thomas J. MD; Reed, Darcy A. MD, MPH; Cook, David A. MD, MHPE Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, Academic Medicine: September 2014 - Volume 89 - Issue 9 - p 1245-1251 DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 https://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-and-medicine/policies/guidelines-for-qualitative-papers Bazeley , P. (2017). Writing mixed methods research articles and theses. Research Support P/L and Western Sydney University. retrieved from www.researchsupport.com.au Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health services research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117