How Do You Review Confirmability in a Qualitative Study

Editor'due south Notation: The post-obit mail service is function of a serial of Peer Reviewer Resources written by some ofAcademic Medicine'due south height peer reviewers. Read other peer review posts.

By: Carol-anne Moulton, Doctor, FRACS, MEd, PhD, Section of Surgery, University of Toronto, and Priyanka Patel, MSc, Wilson Center, University Wellness Network, University of Toronto

This is a tough chore. Let u.s.a. say that off the bat. We have been involved in qualitative enquiry for a long time now and the complexity of it never ceases to amaze us…then there is no "how to" guide that will suit all qualitative research.

Having said that, we think at that place are some guiding principles that can assist u.s. begin to empathize the rigor of qualitative inquiry and consequently the review process.

1. Question/Purpose: This should exist clearly stated, as in all inquiry studies. There are generally no hypotheses statements in qualitative inquiry equally we are not testing but rather exploring. Ideally, the questions are framed around how and why type questions, rather than how often, is there a difference, or what are the factors type questions.
2. Rationale of report: We similar to make sure that the study was built upon a well justified and referenced rationale. It may non be our area of study just we think it is important for the authors to provide rationale for their study past building up the arguments from the literature. Theories or pre-existing frameworks that informed the enquiry question should be described up front. Some work claims to be atheoretical. Traditionally, grounded theorists claimed their work to be atheoretical, but nowadays many grounded theorists are acknowledging being informed past particular perspectives, frameworks, or theories. This should be made explicit.
3. Methodology described: What type of research was this? Ethnography? Grounded theory? Phenomenology? Discourse analysis? Information technology'due south important that the researchers describe their enquiry journey in a clear and detailed enough way to give the readers an agreement for how the analyses evolved. This should include an explanation of why the methodological approach was used, too as the key principles from the methodology that guided the study.
4. Epistemology: Researchers come from all paradigms and it is important to identify within which image the authors are situated. Sometimes they might state deliberately "We have used constructivist grounded theory," merely it might be a affair of reading between the lines to figure it out. If from the positivist paradigm, authors might use the terms valid or verified to imply they are making statements of truth. The paradigm helps u.s. sympathize what the authors mean by "truth" and informs how they went about creating knowledge and constructing pregnant from their results.
5. Context described satisfactorily: Qualitative research is non meant to imply generalizability. In fact, we celebrate the importance of context. We recognize that the phenomena we study are oftentimes different in meaningful means when taken to a different context. For example, the experiences of physicians coping with burnout may be unique based on specialty and/or institution (i.e. type of systems-level support available, differing demands in academic or community institutions). A good qualitative report should therefore describe sufficient details of context (i.e. physical, cultural, social, and/or ecology context) in which the inquiry was conducted to allow the reader to make judgments of whether the results might be transferable to another (perhaps their own) setting.
6. Data collection and assay: Do they provide enough data to empathise the collection and analysis process? As reviewers, we ofttimes ask ourselves whether the data collection and analyses are articulate and detailed enough for us to gain a sense of how the assay of the phenomena evolved. For example, who made up the research team? Considering nearly cognition is viewed equally a co-construction between researcher and participants, each individual (e.g. a sociologist versus a surgeon) will analyze the results differently, but both meaningfully, based on their unique position and perspective.
7. Sampling strategies: These are very important to understand whether the question was aligned with the data collection procedure. The sample reflects the type of results accomplished and helps the reader sympathise from which perspective the data was collected. Some common sampling strategies include theoretical sampling and negative example sampling. Researchers may theoretically sample by selecting participants that in someway inform their understanding of an emergent theme or idea. Negative case sampling may exist used to search for instances that may challenge the emergent patterns from the data for the purpose of refining the analysis. Negative instance sampling is used to ensure that the researchers are not specifically selecting cases that confirm their findings.
8. Assay elevated beyond clarification: Results might exist descriptive in nature (e.g. "Ane surgeon felt upset and isolated after he experienced a hernia complexity in his first month of independent practice") or they might be elevated to create more abstruse concepts and ideas removed from the master dataset (east.g. characterizing the phases of surgeons' reactions to complications). In either instance, the researcher should ensure that the way they present their findings are aligned with principles of the methodology used.
9. Proof of an iterative process: Qualitative research is usually washed in an iterative manner where ideas and concepts are congenital up over fourth dimension and occur through cycles of information collection and information analysis. This is demonstrated through statements like "Our interview template was altered over time to reverberate the emergent ideas through the analysis procedure," or "As nosotros became interested in this concept, we began to sample for…".
10. Reflexivity: This is tough to understand, especially for those of u.s.a. who come from the positivist paradigm where it is of utmost importance to "prove" that the results are "true" and untainted by bias. The aim of qualitative research is to empathise meaning rather than assuming that there is a singular truth or reality. A practiced qualitative researcher recognizes that the way they make sense of and attach meaning to the information is partly shaped by the characteristics of the researcher (i.eastward. age, gender, social class, ethnicity, professional status, etc.) and the assumptions they hold. The researcher should make explicit the perspectives they are coming from and then that the readers can interpret the data appropriately. Consider a study exploring the pressures surgical trainees feel in residency conducted by a staff surgeon versus a non-surgical anthropologist. You can imagine the findings may differ based on the types of questions the two interviewers decide to inquire, what they each discover interesting or important, or how comfortable the resident feels discussing sensitive data with an outsider (anthropologist) as opposed to an insider (surgeon). We like to see that a researcher has reflected on how her or his unique position, preconceptions, and biases influenced the findings.

everetthersentooped.blogspot.com

Source: https://academicmedicineblog.org/peer-reviewer-resources-10-tips-for-reviewing-a-qualitative-paper/

Share this post