QUALPOR News

The American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) supports a number of “affinity groups,” i.e., researchers who share in a special interest or aspect of research. One such group is QUALPOR, which provides a forum to share best practices, exchange resources, and discuss new approaches to qualitative research design as well as ways to improve on the integrity of these designs along with the quality and usefulness of the outcomes. QUALPOR has grown to 182 members and become a vital resource for researchers actively involved in qualitative research as well as those who are simply interested in qualitative methods.

Twice a year, QUALPOR publishes a newsletter, QUALPOR News. The April 2024 newsletter is now available. This issue is the lengthiest ever and is full of news and original articles concerning qualitative research methods from a wide assortment of contributors. Although many of the articles pertain in some way to the AAPOR conference being held in Atlanta on May 15-17, 2024, these articles are of great interest to anyone involved in qualitative research.

For instance, Andrew Stavisky (GAO) and Darby Steiger (SSRS) provide a fascinating conversation concerning “Perspectives on AI in Qualitative Research” (see pp. 3-6). And Ann MacFadyen and Amanda Wilmot (National Center for Health Statistics) discuss “Adapting our Methods: Using Photo Elicitation During Cognitive Interviews with Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (ID/DD)” (see pp. 13-14).

For anyone going to the AAPOR conference, the newsletter presents a complete list of the amazing amount of presentations and activities devoted to qualitative research at this year’s conference (see pp. 10-12), including

2024 QUALPOR Panel

And, as with all issues of QUALPOR News, this newsletter finishes up with a rundown of upcoming qualitative research workshops, webinars, and conferences.

The April 2024 issue of QUALPOR News can be found here. Happy reading!

Being Human: The Participant-Researcher Relationship in Qualitative Research

Participant-researcher relationship

Unlike the relatively sterile environment of quantitative research, a unique and essential component of qualitative research designs is the deliberate fostering of the participant-research relationship. This unique attribute of qualitative research is highly compatible with what it means to conduct qualitative methods; that is, to prioritize the human element of our research.

The focus in qualitative research on the interaction of human beings is manifested by the care that is taken in the:

  • development of the appropriate sample design;
  • techniques and approaches that are used to recruit participants;
  • attention to mode preferences;
  • intense training required of the researcher in order to establish rapport with participants while also gaining useful data towards meeting the research objectives; and
  • data analysis process which is a holistic approach that “is centered on the entirety of each lived experience or group of experiences related to the phenomena under investigation and specific research objectives.”

As central to both the raison d’être of qualitative research and its priority in research design, the participant-researcher relationship potentially impacts research outcomes. As stated by Roller & Lavrakas (2015),

This relationship is at the core of [in-depth interviews] IDIs, group discussions, participant observation, and narrative research, wherein participants and researchers share the “research space” in which certain conventions for communicating (knowingly or not) may be formed that in turn shape the reality the researcher is capturing in the data. For instance, depending on an interviewer’s ability to build rapport with an interviewee, the IDI participant may be inclined to respond to interview questions in a socially desirable or normative manner; for example, a mother may exaggerate the extent to which she buys healthy foods for her children. This social component that is embedded in the participant–researcher relationship drives the “power dynamics” (Kvale, 2006) of the research environment in which both parties—participant and researcher—strive to control what is said and not said (e.g., the interviewer generally controls the questions that are asked, but the interviewee may elect to withhold information). [The Total Quality Framework addresses] this power struggle, its implications for the integrity of research data, and the strategies that can be utilized in the research design to mitigate its effects. (p. 6)

All of the 10 unique attributes of qualitative research are associated in some way with the humanness of qualitative methods. Yet the participant-researcher relationship is fundamental to the other nine attributes and speaks loudly about the role of “being human” in qualitative research.

Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 480–500. Retrieved from http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1077800406286235

Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Applied qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach. New York: Guilford Press.

A Rigorous Qualitative Study to Explore Type 1 Diabetes in Older Adults: Using the Total Quality Framework

Diabetic MedicineIn “Supporting the ‘lived expertise’ of older adults with type 1 diabetes: An applied focus group analysis to characterize barriers, facilitators, and strategies for self-management in a growing and understudied population” (Cristello Sarteau et al., 2024), the authors discuss their study among older adults (OAs, defined as adults 65 years of age or older) with type 1 diabetes concerning care management. This research consisted of nine in-person focus group discussions with a total of 33 OAs and caregivers.

Central to the design and implementation of this research was the Total Quality Framework (TQF) (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015). The authors selected the TQF due to their focus on rigor and a quality approach to investigate the lived experiences of OAs with type 1 diabetes.

To support rigorous research and reporting, we selected the Total Quality Framework (TQF), a comprehensive set of evidence-based criteria for limiting bias and promoting validity in all phases of the applied qualitative research process. (p. 2)

In this article, the authors provide a unique and useful table describing the rationale behind their methodological decisions pertaining to each component of the TQF, i.e., Credibility, Analyzability, Transparency, and Usefulness. For example, with respect to Credibility, the table offers a lengthy discussion of sample design, including the impact of limited resources on the recruitment process and why the size of each group discussion was kept to 4-5 participants. Other areas of discussion in the table include the coding format and identification of themes (Analyzability), complete disclosure of elements related to design, data collection, and analysis (Transparency), and “how the study should be interpreted, acted upon, or applied in other research context in the real world” (Usefulness). Importantly, readers are directed to areas within the article where they can read about the explanations of methodological decisions that go beyond the limited space of the table, e.g., definition of the target population.

This research “revealed, above all, the complex and dynamic nature of managing type 1 diabetes over the lifespan” and provided “valuable foundational information for future research efforts” (p. 13). In addition to the perceived strengths of the research, the authors’ quality approach also allowed for an informed discussion of the limitations (e.g., diversity in the sample). By way of the TQF Transparency component, the authors provide readers with the details they need to build on this research and move forward in defining care-management solutions for the OA population with type 1 diabetes. As the authors state, the TQF enabled them to “promote confidence in using results from our study to inform future decision-making” (p. 17).

Cristello Sarteau, A., Muthukkumar, R., Smith, C., Busby‐Whitehead, J., Lich, K.H., Pratley, R.E., Thambuluru, S., Weinstein, J., Weinstock, R.S., Young, L.A. and Kahkoska, A.R., 2024. Supporting the ‘lived expertise’of older adults with type 1 diabetes: An applied focus group analysis to characterize barriers, facilitators, and strategies for self‐management in a growing and understudied population. Diabetic Medicine, 41(1), e15156.

Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Applied qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach. Guilford Publications.