Qualitative Research - Report Example

Qualitative Research Qualitative Research Question one Aspirations of IRBs An IRB means an al review board. This is a research body that involves itself in protecting the welfare of researchers. Most research work must have some form of funding and this can be solely from the government or other private sector funding. Researcher’s institutions that accept funding of their projects from the federal government must have in place an IRB to review all research involving people. IRBs review researches that touch on the following areas; biomedical and clinical research, research using left over tissues, behavioral research and survey research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). IRBs must approve and review research because it is a requirement of the law. IRB operates under some set principles that govern their operation and reviews of researches. The principles include respect for persons, beneficence and justice. If a research fails to consider the three principles then it shun down from commencing. Respect for persons is the first and the most important principle of the three. It states that before a subject is involved in a research one should be fully informed about the research. The subject should be involved voluntarily in the research and that the subject’s privacy and confidentiality be protected. According to Heine, Henrich & Norenzayan (2010), beneficence means that the subject humans should benefit from the research to justify the risks that they are exposed to during the research process. For instance, a research about clinical medicine may involve human specimen taking sample drugs. This is a very high risk and therefore those people should be treatment in return in case it is necessary and be paid for what they did. Failures of IRBs IRBs are exposed to some failures due to the nature of their work. As researches increase and IRBs tries to meet the increasing demand it is prone to failures and some liabilities. Such failures make IRBs to face liabilities and this hinders their operations in improving research programmers. Mitigation measures should be put in place to reduce these failures and liabilities associated with them. When a research process fails, people lose trust and confidence in the IRBs operation procedures and therefore this leads to several failed trials and loss in terms of funds. Some of the factors that IRBs face as failures include conflict of interest, trial failures and unqualified subjects. Conflict of interest arises from the fact that IRBs, funding bodies and the subject people may not readily agree to what should be undertaken. Janesick (370) argues that most researches involving humans are of high risks and full of uncertainties and therefore people are not readily willing to take part in them. Trials failures are a major part that contributes to IRBs failures. When the researches and experiments carried out fail, they scare away humans and make them not willing to take part. This will eventually lead to failures in IRBs trials and operations in general. IRBs may at times use unqualified subjects to carry out their researches and experiments and as a result leading to either death or complications. This increases their liabilities and reduces their trust to subject. Such a failure was recorded sometimes back in the university of Pennsylvania on an 18year old boy with a strange liver disease. The boy reacted negatively to the drugs being administered to him and died few days later. Luckily, the plaintiff did not involve the university. However, generally the issue reduced the trust in the involved IRB and thus a failure (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Ethical Conducts in Research Ethics are a code of moral conduct that governs every aspect of life from the professional circle to the normal social life. Different people learn ethics and ethical studies from different places. Most of them learn it from home and their background while others get it from the professional studies and others learn it from religious centers like churches, mosques and temples. Ethics are what keeps morality and restores sanity in our societies although still there are social disputes due to lack of ethics or different interpretations of same norms. Ethical norms also apply and adhere to research. Ethics and norms will help to improve the reasons for the research being carried out. These include knowledge improvement, truth and avoidance of error in the procedures. Some of the ethical principles and codes that govern research and those that IRBs use to streamline their activities include honesty, objectivity, respect for intellectual property and openness. Ethics in research are always reviewed depending on the type of research and the IRB that takes part in the research. Ethics also gives those involved in the process of research an upper hand to fight for their rights both on job and outside. Honesty and objectivity are the leading ethical issues that IRBs should follow to restore sanity to research. According to Heine, Henrich & Norenzayan (2010), this includes doing as per the agreement with the subjects and sticking to the main reason for the research. This will increase subject trust to the IRBs and improve their functioning. Respect to the intellectual property is also an ethics issue that involves IRBs giving respect to patents and to the consents of the subjects that are to be involved in the researches. Respect o the dignity of human beings and human life is vital and it improves the trust of subjects to IRBs, and as such, to improve its operations. Question two Triangulation Triangulation is a term used to define the use of multiple or different sources of data in a specific investigation to help come out with an understanding of the situation in question. This use of data from different sources helps to cover up loopholes that some sources could have by other sources. Scientists use this method of research as technique to unsure that the information from the research is comprehensive and understandable rather than a method for verification and validation. The major reason for triangulation is that using a single method in research cannot shed enough light on a phenomenon in question and therefore using multiple sources can help clear this up. Triangulation involves only quantitative work. There are three different types of triangulation and scientists under different accounts of research and information dispensation use them differently. The types include triangulation of sources, analyst triangulation and theory or perspective triangulation. These data collection methods may be used together because it is common to have both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data. Triangulation of sources means that the consistency of different data from different sources but within the same method for example comparing people with different points of view or comparing public versus private settings. Janesick (370) argues that analyst triangulation means finding reviews using different observers or analysts. This form of triangulation is used to shed light on blind spots. Theory or perspective triangulation means using different theoretical perspectives to interpret some piece of research data. This means that the gathered data is viewed from several perspectives of life in accordance to the intention of the research. Crystallization Crystallization is a term that defines the data analysis process. The collected data is analyzed to make it useful to the third party, also to give out the required results, and to justify the reason for the research. The process of analysis is important in the whole research process because it deals with handling the gathered data and any alterations could bring about wrong interpretations. To avoid the gathered data to be destroyed, scientists integrate the different methods of triangulation to ascertain the data and supplement the sources from which the data was acquired. Crystallization deals with qualitative research work. This process involves immersion and then crystallization. Immersion is the initial stage of information analysis where scientists “immerse” themselves into the data they have gathered and reading it thoroughly. This is by reading through the whole data or just examining in detail some part of it to find out finer details. Immersion shows the devotion of scientist to the research work that they did and this part of research work is not subject to IRBs regulations. All research works must go through this immersion stage for the data to gain any relevance and before going through crystallization stage or just immersion is enough. Crystallization stage is a process where the researchers suspend the process of immersion. This is in order to try to reflect back on the analysis experience and then try to get patterns and trends noticed during the immersion process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Crystallization and triangulation are both means and processes through which research data is analyses and transformed into useful information. Both the processes take place after data collection. The collection of scientific data and the whole process of research should follow or conform to the set IRBs governing principles. Triangulation and crystallization differs in some few ways and they include. Triangulation is the gathering of data from different sources to get clear understanding of the subject while crystallization involves analysis. Triangulation is also in the initial stages of data collection while crystallization is in the later stages. According to Heine, Henrich & Norenzayan (2010), triangulation majorly deals with data collection. This process is the actual collection of data. Scientists and researchers go out to look for data and carry out experiments necessary for them but do not necessarily analyze them. This process requires a lot of funding and is time consuming too. During the experimental stage, researchers are required to follow all regulations of IRBs. On the other hand, crystallization is the process where scientists get finer details from the bulk data from triangulation. This is through analysis of the data from different perspectives and then extracting useful information from them. Scientists take the time to go through every detail of the data. This process is not subject to IRBs regulations since it happens after the research and only involves analysis. Crystallization also deals with qualitative work while triangulation deals with quantitative analysis. In conclusion, it is relative to discern that crystallization is far much better than triangulation, and as such, provides much better and higher quality results in research. Question three Establishment of Qualitative Work Validity According to Denzin & Lincoln (2000), validity of qualitative work or research work means making an observation from the work to look as truth or false with respect to the reality. Validation of qualitative work excludes any issue of guesses and theories that cannot have basic scientific evidence. Most qualitative researchers do reject this issue of validation depending on their philosophical perspectives. This commonly accepted in quantitative researches in social sciences. They only argue for varying standards of judging their research quality. Validity of research work starts by the participants of the research work confirming that the research work is believable or credible. Then that is where the qualitative analysts will come in to view the information from the participant’s eye to try to understand the phenomenon. Only those people who participate in the research work are able to judge the validity of qualitative work. That is the point where the credibility of qualitative work starts to be established. Credibility for qualitative data can be established by first understanding the criteria for credibility of qualitative research and for quantitative research and then getting the difference between the two approaches. Heine, Henrich & Norenzayan (2010), argue that the criteria for judging qualitative research includes credibility, transferability, conformability and dependability. Establishment of validity to qualitative work is only possible if the criteria above are put in place. Scientists dealing with data from experiments and field works will have to analyze it qualitatively to find the fine information. The information is then able to answer the questions or satisfy the criteria of credibility on qualitative data. The linkages between quantitative data collection scientists and qualitative data analysts are a concern for the establishment of credibility of qualitative work. This is because they both believe in different perspectives of data collection and analysis. Transferability means how the results of qualitative data can be generalized and transferred to other contexts. Qualitative researcher doing the generalizing has the primary responsibility for this. Transferability is enhancing by doing a recommendable job by the researcher by describing the context and then assumptions that were central (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). How Validity Can Be Ensured and Established In Qualitative Research Conclusions drawn from data analysis and surveys are only acceptable to the degree at which they are viewed as credible information. This varies depending with the source and who is to use the information. Validity checks out whether the research succeeded in measuring what it was intended for or it was a failure and in approximation of the truth in the results. However, researcher in qualitative work does not acknowledge validity and this is definitely wrong. This is because if one disregards credibility of his or her own work then it raises questions about the trustworthiness of the person in reference to the work. Validity can be ensured in qualitative research through making those stakeholders of qualitative research understand its importance. Scientists dealing with qualitative research do not understand the importance of credibility procedures to their work. They assume that what they do is superior to quantitative work and that it is naturally true. Such scientists should first be informed about the relevance of credibility if they want their research work to be widely accepted and without doubts (Heine, Henrich & Norenzayan, 2010) Credibility can also be ensured in qualitative works by making the IRBs to put validation of any research work whether qualitative or quantitative to have credibility checks. Since all the research works are under these IRBs, then qualitative researchers will automatically shift in. Credibility can also be established in qualitative work by making any scientist’s work that does not meet validation criteria are out of use. Scientists will then rush to validate their qualitative work so that their input in the research should not go to waste. Qualitative scientists or analysts that deal with qualitative data can ensure validity in their work through integration of their ideas with quantitative researchers. Accepting criticism from the public and reviews about their research works whether they are credible or not. This way, the scientists will work towards satisfying their customers and therefore making their work credible. This can also be reinforced by the research agencies stipulating down principles that value validity and credibility of research work regardless of the source or method of acquiring the data and analysis. Research work is the backbone of all verifiable information and statistics in the whole world and therefore the information’s credibility should of high standards to avoid spreading misleading information to the world. References Denzin, M. & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. Denzin, M. & Lincoln, Y. (2000). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. Heine, S., Henrich, J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2010) 33, 61–135 Janesick, V. The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design: Minutes, Improvisations, and Crystallization. Kuzel, A. Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry. Menon, U. & Shweder, R. The Return of “The White Man’s Burden”: The Moral Discourse of Anthropology and the Domestic Life of Hindu Women. Tedlock, B. Ethnography and Ethnographic Representation. Read More