The contribution of qualitative research is increasingly recognised as invaluable for informing health and intervention research, and it is important that practitioners and policy- makers are confident about the quality of qualitative work (Dixon-Woods, Shaw, Agarwal, & Smith 2004). As this study was designed to be qualitative, it was fundamental that I considered how quality assurance would be addressed throughout the research process. However, there are a range of perspectives on what constitutes good quality qualitative research. In light of the plurality of qualitative methodologies, Dixon- Woods et al. (2004) argue that qualitative research should not be viewed as a unified approach to research. There are long-standing debates regarding how quality should be defined in qualitative research, especially when there is a “lack of clear, structured
guidance based on the intrinsic principles of qualitative research” (Reynolds et al.,
2011, p. 8). However, drawing upon fundamental principles which characterise qualitative research can provide an approach that facilitates quality assurance, in such a way that is consistent with the distinct values of qualitative research, and take into account a range of qualitative methodologies (Reynolds et al., 2011). There were a number of ways that I sought to address quality assurance in relation to the study design, methods, data collection, data analysis and write-up, and in light of the relevant literature. These were as follows: engaging in reflexivity, attending regular supervision meetings, presenting my findings to participants, DVA researchers and practitioners, seeking respondent validation, ensuring transparent and clear reporting of the study, and keeping an audit trail throughout the study. The following section discusses each of these.
Reflexivity has gained a vital role in qualitative research and is viewed as a fundamental practice in qualitative research (Hsiung, 2008). Reflexivity is the process of critical reflection undertaken throughout the research process (Charmaz, 2006),
122
involving researchers critically evaluating their own position as an enquirer and their emotional responses to participants’ accounts as they interpret them (Davis, Watson, & Cunningham-Burley, 2000; Emond, 2005; Mauthner & Doucet, 2003). Engaging in reflexivity can make research findings more credible by the researcher engaging in self- critical appraisal and self-awareness, making explicit and transparent the researcher’s contribution to the interpretive process (Liamputtong, 2009). Charmaz has proposed that researchers are obligated to be reflexive about “what we bring to the scene, what we see
and how we see it” (2014, p.27). Furthermore, Charmaz (2014) has argued that “We are not scientific observers who can dismiss scrutiny of our values by claiming scientific neutrality and authority. Neither observer nor observed come to a scene untouched by the world” (p.27).
As part of the quality assurance of the study, I recognised the importance of remaining reflexive throughout the research process in order to consider how my history, preconceptions, values and beliefs impacted how I planned to conduct the study, how I perceived, interpreted and presented the data (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003; Monteith, 2004; Stanley & Wise, 1983). Specifically, I engaged in memo-writing and kept a field- work diary and these activities were integral to providing me with the space for on-going reflection throughout the research, so that I could critically review my personal assumptions and reflect on my theoretical and ethical positions (Birks & Mills, 2011). I was reflexive in the design of the study as I continued to critically evaluate the approaches I took to conduct the research. For example I became aware that I needed to be more flexible in fitting in with participants in order to interview them, even if this was sometimes inconvenient for me. Importantly, this enabled participants to choose how they engaged in the research rather than me trying to dictate when interviews took place.
I was also reflexive when conducting the interviews. For example, it was usual practice that within 24 hours after having conducted each interview I documented field notes and self-reflections. These comprised my thoughts about how the interview had gone, how I felt I had interacted with the participants and what could have been done differently, my perception of the participant and whether there were any behaviours that stood out, and finally, what I believed to be the key messages arising from the interview. Documenting and revisiting these field notes were especially helpful for subsequent data analysis, whereby I read over the notes which documented the key message of the interviews in order to consider whether the themes I developed reflected these. McGhee, Marland, and Atkinson (2007) argued that reflexivity can also play a key role in
123
preventing a researcher who is already very familiar with the literature on the topic of study from distorting perceptions of the data or forcing preconceived concepts and theories. Thus, engaging in the process of reflexivity enabled me to be informed by and build on previous knowledge gained through the literature review, without assuming that concepts discovered in the preliminary literature review were the only solution to addressing a research problem (Strubing, 2007). I also revisited the aforementioned field notes when writing up the findings from the study and as I considered how to present and contextualise them (Downing, Polzer, & Levan, 2013). Throughout the research process I had regular supervision meetings which provided me with many opportunities to critically discuss ideas and thoughts, and to consider another perspective in relation to conducting the study, analysing the data and how I wrote up the study and presented the findings. These supervision sessions were such that I had some form of accountability whereby I was encouraged to be reflexive and to engage in discussions about the ways in which I was or was not being reflexive. Thus, the supervision sessions were another mechanism to check how I approached the study.
Throughout the research, I delivered presentations at DVA national and international conferences to academics and practitioners. This involved presentations about the design and methods of the study, the challenges of conducting the study as well as presenting my analysis of the data. These opportunities enabled me to gain feedback from experts in the field of DVA about my study and to critically reflect and respond to the feedback about how I conducted the study, my analysis of the data and how I wrote up the study.
As discussed in Section 4.5.2, the iterative process of conducting interviews and analysing data analysis meant that I adjusted interview guides accordingly. Conducting interviews and analysing data in parallel enabled respondent validation whereby I was able to check the correspondence between the developing analysis and the perspectives of interviewees in subsequent interviews (Dixon Woods et al., 2004). The iterative analysis allowed me to identify unexpected or atypical issues, and to explore these issues in subsequent interviews. Towards the end of the study I also presented my findings to the DVA organisation. This provided a useful opportunity to check out whether my findings resonated with the experiences of the service providers.
Although there has been much debate about what constitutes good standards in the methodological rigour of qualitative research, there is widespread agreement about the importance of transparent and clear reporting of qualitative studies (O’Brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed, & Cook, 2014). Therefore, when considering how to write up
124
qualitative work and how to maintain quality assurance, I consulted the literature discussing standards for reporting qualitative research. I have aimed to present Study 2 as clear as possible, being transparent about its aims and purpose, the qualitative approach and methods used, details of the sample and the recruitment process of participants, the methodological challenges, and data analysis. As I wanted to remain transparent about the whole research process, I found it beneficial to engage in documenting an audit trail, recording decisions I made and my rationale, even from the early stages of designing the study and deciding what methods I would use. O’Brien et al. (2014) have argued that one key strength of the reporting of qualitative studies is being explicit about the flexibility and adaptability throughout data collection and analysis. Interestingly, there has been little discussion in the literature about the methodological challenges experienced by researchers working within the field of DVA. Transparency therefore not only contributes to the quality assurance of a study, but as I hope in the case of this thesis, it will make important methodological contributions to the field of DVA intervention research. Whilst Section 4.13 discussed how I chose to present the qualitative themes in this thesis, it is also important that I acknowledge how I maintained quality assurance in the write up of the findings. As there are multiple voices in the thesis, whether this is the voice of the child, the parent, intervention provider or my own, I have been explicit about whose voice is represented.
In this section I have reviewed the ways in which I approached the conduct of the research to demonstrate methodological rigour and in light of the quality assurance literature. I revisit the quality assurance of the study in Section 9.5 of the Discussion chapter.