Quality measures for qualitative research have evolved from a translation of quantitative standards into expectations more explicitly aligned to qualitative objectives (Padgett, 2008; D’Cruz and Jones, 2014). Creswell (2013) illustrates this in an overview of perspectives on qualitative research validity over a period of thirty years, from the 1980s. This shows them evolving from the use of simple quantitative/qualitative equivalences to the coining of new terminology, for example
with validity coming to be conceptualised as a crystal, reflecting and refracting a range of perspectives. This highlights that quality considerations change over time: what is found satisfactory today may seem lacking in the future. Nonetheless, quality was important for me to think about as a novice researcher needing to demonstrate acceptable proficiency, and the literature review had shown that where quality was lacking or unclear, a study’s knowledge claims were compromised. Creswell concludes from his account that qualitative researchers commonly employ eight validation strategies, and advises that any study should demonstrate at least two. Not all are relevant for all methodologies. For example, neither Creswell’s ‘persistent observation’, nor ‘member checking’ (p.251–252) would apply to a study using IPA. However, others are relevant and are detailed elsewhere in this thesis – the clarification of my personal starting point in Chapter One, and the detailed description of themes supported by a range of evidence in Chapters Six, Seven and Eight. In addition to these generic considerations, different qualitative approaches have their own markers of quality. Smith (2011a), having reviewed nearly three hundred papers published between 1996 and 2008 reporting studies that used IPA, identified six overlapping indicators of good quality work. The table below summarises both what these are and how they have been taken into account in the completion of this study.
Table 8: The quality of the study
Smith’s quality criteria for
research using IPA How addressed in the study The paper should have a clear
focus Initial broad focus on ethics in social work education refined in the literature review, and maintained throughout the thesis The paper will have strong Care given to the interview guide, prompts
data, resulting from careful attention to the interview process
and probes. Interviews designed to put participants at ease and elicit detailed data. The paper should be rigorous,
showing prevalence of each theme across a sample
Participant representation in group themes is noted in results chapters, and extracts from all participants are included Sufficient space must be given
to the elaboration of each theme
Group themes are each presented with supporting transcript extracts in the results chapters
The analysis must be interpretative, not just descriptive
Interpretation accompanies transcript extracts in the results chapters The analysis should point to
both convergence and divergence
Similarity and uniqueness of participants’ contribution to each group theme is represented in the results chapters Quality criteria adapted from Smith 2011a, p.24.
5.6.1 The role of reflexivity
The methodological literature widely notes reflexivity as a marker of research quality, with reflexivity broadly meaning the researcher’s awareness of his or her own impact on the research process (for example Padgett, 2008; Braun and Clarke, 2013; D’Cruz and Jones, 2014; Yardley, 2015). In addition, the growing emphasis on research-mindedness in social work (D’Cruz and Jones) has been accompanied by the articulation of disciplinary expectations of reflexivity alongside ethical awareness (for example Hugman, 2010a; Dodd and Epstein, 2012). However, when Gringeri et al. (2013) reviewed a sample of 100 social work articles published between 2008 and 2010, they found reflexivity evident in only 16 per cent. This does not necessarily mean that it was absent from the research itself, but nevertheless in my own work and in the interests of transparency I wanted to ensure that I thought from the
outset about my own relationship to and impact on the study, and captured further reflections as the research process unfolded.
Reflexivity is conceptualised differently in different methodological approaches. In a grounded theory study ‘theoretical sensitivity’ includes the researcher’s personal and professional starting point, important to identify at the start of a study and as it progresses (Birks and Mills, 2010, p.59). Conversely, in a descriptive phenomenological study the researcher is required to ‘bracket’ existing understandings aside to facilitate close engagement with the phenomenon (Finlay, 2011, p.97). In IPA, the emphasis on the researcher’s as well as the participant’s understandings means that bracketing is not regarded as fully achievable. Rather, it is important for the researcher to recognise and manage their personal perspective throughout the research process (Smith, Flowers and Larkin, 2009). This was inherent in the process of analysis, as at each stage I captured thoughts and impressions in memos (as noted above, and see Appendix I). In addition, I used three further strategies. The first was writing about my PhD study as a whole. Initially I contained this in a journal, but this proved unsatisfactory: the journal was not always with me, or sometimes I simply wanted to jot down a word or two as an aide memoire. To remedy this I kept notes in a range of places. These included a notebook updated immediately before and after each interview, individual sheets in my Filofax for thoughts during the working week, and a notebook by my bed. Together they both enabled simple ventilation about the excitement and frustrations about the research process and captured unexpected insights or ideas that might direct reading, discussion or analysis. Putting thoughts in writing also provided a
sense of structure and control, especially helpful to me as a part-time student managing my research alongside other demands. Second, supervision, in formal meetings and occasionally via email, raised issues for attention or reconsideration. Finally, I was able to reflect in discussions with peers, both in the University and within the IPA practice community, with the latter also offering opportunities to present or discuss the study at various stages. Together these strategies facilitated continual reflection on the research, and my experience of and impact on it. However, I was aware that the very process of reflection was inherently coloured by my personal starting point and my experiences as social work student, practitioner and educator (see Chapter One). This meant that as well as reflective strategies, the rigour of the research process was essential in helping mitigate my inevitable preconceptions, of which I could not be fully aware.
This account of quality considerations in the study concludes this chapter, which has outlined the rationale, methodology and methods for the research. This context having been set, the next chapter moves on to present the product of the methods and tools employed: the results.
Chapter Six: The Year One results
This is the first of three chapters that present the results of the study, addressing each of the three year-group samples in turn. The table below provides a reminder of the details of the Y1 participants
.
Table 9: Year 1 participants
Name
in study Ethnicity Age at start of course
Faith
Amy White British 26 Christian Balikis Black African 30 Christian Francesca Black African 27 Christian Jane White British 39 None
At the time of their interviews, the Y1 participants were nearing the end of their first year of study on their undergraduate social work degree course. They had completed their academic work for the year, including foundational input on ethics, and completed a range of tasks designed to develop and assess their readiness for practice learning (see Chapter Two). These included classroom-based skills development activities and practical work observing a child and shadowing a qualified social worker.
The chapter comprises accounts of the super-ordinate themes and group themes developed in the analysis (see Chapter Five), supported with extracts from the interview transcripts. In the headings of relevant sections of the chapter, the name of each group theme – my own words followed by words from a participant – is
given in full. Subsequently, in the interests of concision, just my own words are used. In the extracts, (…) indicates that words have been omitted and [ ] any words added for clarity.
The analysis of the Year 1 data led to the development of two super-ordinate themes, each made up of two group themes capturing contributions from all four participants.
Table 10: Year 1 analysis summary
Super- ordinate themes
Group themes Representation
Ethical
orientation Ethical affinity: ‘It has something to do with who I am’
All participants
Scoping the ethical field: ‘As long as you’ve got those [ethical] pillars, then you should be all right’
All participants
Understanding
people Feeling for others: ‘Thinking about how other people feel in situations’
All participants
Accepting the individual: ‘Everybody has different challenges’.
All participants
As the previous chapter described, I developed the group themes by a process of the refinement and abstraction of lower level, emergent themes. Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009) note that in writing up the results of IPA, there is wide flexibility in how the various level themes are presented. Thus it may be relevant to present emergent themes in their own right, or they may be ‘redundant’ as they have been absorbed into themes at a higher, more abstracted level (Smith, Flowers and Larkin, p.109). This was the case in my own study and so here, and in the following two chapters
which present the results of the Y2 and Y3 analyses, emergent themes are not presented separately. However, within the account of each group theme they comprise the different elements that show the range of meaning that the group theme includes.