Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research - Essay Example

Introduction This is a review of a qualitative research article on how professionals in social and health care grow emphasis on prevention, personalisation and self-care in England in order to improve quality of later life. The primary objective is to examine and refine a method to improve older people’s access to appropriate information and services, and identify older people at risk. I choose this article because it explains how to refine a method to improve access to information and service, and to identify older people at risk, which is central to social work practice at all levels. The research article shows promotion of anti-discrimination practice by identifying and addressing challenges facing the elderly. The research was also important to social work as it engaged to determine whether a new program of intervention to identify older people at risk was needed, monitored implementations of interventions, and determined if these interventions were successful in helping clients reach their goals or outcomes as explained in the research article. The methods of research involved here are qualitative and quantitative methods. Definitions: Qualitative and Quantitative “Quantitative research usually emphasizes quantification in the collection and analysis of data; while Qualitative research usually emphasizes words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data” (Bryman, 2012: pp.714-715). In my opinion, qualitative research is the appropriate approach since sociological research entails analysis of large quantities of data and methods like, interviews, participation and ethnographic. However, “qualitative research is perceived as being more difficult to critically evaluate than quantitative study; nurses need to critique qualitative research for better practice” (CASP, 2001: pg. 744). Authors The views conveyed in this article belong to authors under a qualitative research entitled; “Smarter Working in Social and Health Care: Professional Perspectives on a New Technology for Risk Appraisal with Older People.” The article is a qualitative peer review from the British journal of Social Work, which was written by; “Jill Manthorpe is a Professor of Social Work and Director of the social care workforce research at King’s College London, Kalpa Kaharicha is a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Primary Care and University of London College, Clair Goodman is a Professor of Health Services Research of University of Hertfordshire, Danielle Harari is a Consultant Geriatrician and Senior Lecture at St Thomas Hospital London, Cameron Swift is a Professor of Elderly at Kings College London, and Steven Lliffe is Professor of Primary Care at University College London.” Hence, the study was funded by the Department of Health under the Modernizing Adult Social Care; though the view expressed was the work of authors alone. I will use the Critical Appraisal Skills Program assessment tool (CASP, 2001) and random use of relevant questions in appraising this article. The paper will include a critical appraisal that systematically and logically gives balanced assessment on strengths, weaknesses, limitations and give an informed opinion on the methods and findings. Trustworthiness and authenticity will be used within my approach to form the appraisal of this article (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Abstract The abstract contains the following aims of the study; methodology, findings and implication. The abstract evidently indicated that the study chose a qualitative approach according to (Bryman, 2012). “Qualitative methods are concerned with experiences, feelings and attitudes, as opposed to precise measurement and statistical analysis.” (CASP, 2001, pg. 738). Using this method allowed researchers to speak, observe, listen and understand participant’s behavior and generate new theoretical ideas as suggested by (Becker et al, 2012). In the outset, the authors acknowledged the growing emphasis on preventions, personalization and self-care in England in order to improve quality of later life. Therefore, the research aimed at studying the development of an information technology system that allows older people to assess their own health and receive personalized feedback. The plan was to inform practitioners and managers in how to make use of local population data and to refine a method to improve access to information and services, in order to identify older people at risk. Literature Review During the research, Manthorpe et al (2009, pp. 1839-1843) “found out that the existing health risk assessments are comprehensive particularly in identifying the risks facing the old but burdensome.” This was because Social Workers as well as the managers were unaware of how they could make use of data on the local population to meet the information needs of the older people. The study also aimed at exploring practicality of HRAO technology in determining the needs of the older people and informing social care and health commissioners of such need for effective planning, while focusing on the individual who experience it (Vishnevsky and Beeanland, 2004). The study was credible because it had been peer reviewed which validated the truthfulness of the data presented. The gap was identified and the authors explained how their work would attempt to close it. The article was timely since it came at a time when social work departments in the UK are seeking for ways to use technology to address the health and social matters affecting the older people. The article supported the community care policies that encourage participation of the community and local authorities in ensuring that the older people access social care within their homes. Methods used The researchers used a multi-method research approach in exploring nature of study. The participants included focus groups, individual interviews with older people and professionals as well as discussions with research steering group. A sample of older people, social workers and health practitioners were invited to participate in semi-structured interview, in which there was a Triangulation because more than one data collection method was, used (CASP, 2001). This purposive sampling was followed by snowball sampling whereby, researchers used it to ask participants to establish contacts with others in the consultation exercise (Bryman, 1999). Selection of the participants was done appropriately since they reflected the aim of the study. The researchers used qualitative methodology since it enabled them analyse large amount of data (Mitchell, et al., 2012, 1-7). Qualitative analysis enabled subjectivity since it reflected the views of the majority because the issue of factors affecting the health of the older people in the society was quite complex (Sharland, 2006). Recruitment The recruitment methodology was appropriate since the participants chose to take part in the study voluntarily; anonymity was not possible as participants were known to researchers. Additionally, the study was conducted at two local authorities in London, which were NHS Primary Care Trusts, and Smarter Working in Social and Health Care 1833. The sampling involved use of purposive approach whereby sampling of 52, older person selected from the two areas under study were selected. Additionally, 78 professional dealing with the older people were interviewed. The sample was thus representative and anti-discriminatory since it showed diversity and ensured inclusion of the views of the older people and persons who have dealt with them (Rabinowitz, 2012). The research methodology was effective because it made use of both face-to-face interviews and on phone interview. The individual interviews were organized beforehand and the research questions were clear and addressed the research question. The use of group interviews enabled the participants to stimulate each other’s thinking. Hence, by making use of different approaches, the researchers were able to collect sufficient data, which addressed the research question (Rabinowitz, 2012). Critical Point of view The article does not adequately consider the relationship between the researcher and the participants. The roles played by participants and researchers during the study are not clearly discussed, which makes it possible that the study could have been biased in nature. Additionally, the article does not address the issue of how different participants responded to different data collection methods, which makes the study insufficient. Ethical Ethical issues were taken into consideration since the participants were selected randomly and participated in the study at free will. Permission was obtained from the local authorities. For participating employees, the heads of the organizations were involved in the study. The study question was on the views of the participants on the value, usability, and appropriateness of Health Risk Appraisal for Older people in assessing the need of the older-people (Illife, et al., 2000, 4-6). Data analysis The data was analysed qualitatively to enable consideration of multiple perspectives from the different unrelated groups of participants. This enabled the researchers to analyse view as well as experiences from varying groups and individuals. The analysis was descriptive and three members of the research team were involved in the analysis of the data. Use of discussion amongst the analysers ensured that different perspectives were included. Therefore, the study ensured that the data was correct by further analysis of the results through the other members of the research team (Manthorpe, et al., 2009). The analysis was extensive since the researchers aimed at reaching a point of saturation (Manthorpe, et al., 2009, 1829-1834). The findings were presented appropriately and in a manner that could be easily understood (McLaughlin, 2012, 1-7). Limitations and Recommendations of the Article The article failed to address the shortcomings of the existing programs. Though it mentioned that the existing programs do not state how leaders in the society should deal with reported information on the problems face by the old at risk, it failed to provide evidence on this. I would recommend that the researchers outline why the existing program requires modifications. The study did not mention other policies that can be incorporated in care provision. It would be recommendable if the researchers mentioned the policies that would make the existing program more workable. Conclusion Manthorpe, Goodman, Harari, Swift, and Iliffe article was extensive and addressed the objectives of the study. The data reflected the situation for the target population since it entailed interviewing individual as well as groups. The sample was large and thus meaningful inferences on the target population were obtained. The article was organized and easy to understand and covered all the features of a research article. The objective and the findings were clearly explained, as they specifically outlined points that suggest potential benefits for older people and for social care services. The findings informed data collection in terms of validation of themes as well as ensuring that gaps in information was addressed; which was useful to social workers since they addressed the issue of health and social factors affecting the old, a subject that has been debated in the field of social studies before. In the recent past, social work in UK has become focused on service delivery to the old. The study is thus crucial since it addresses how use of technology can be enhanced among the older people. There are no serious omissions and the research question was addressed appropriately. It provided new insight on issues affecting the older people. It contributed to the existing knowledge by pointing out at the issues that needed to be addressed to make HRAO more incorporative. The study contributed to existing knowledge by providing measures that can be taken to refine HRAO method and improve access of information and services by the old people. Additionally, it provided ways of identifying older people at risk, and examined the potential of HRAO in enriching public sector. In adopting an anti-discriminatory approach to practice and working with all genres of older people, one can challenge assumptions, opinions and prejudices that put limitations on a service user’s ability to live a full and inclusive lifestyle. The premise of empowering becomes apparent when Social Workers strive to understand the world of a person in need of care (Crawford and Walker: 2004). References Becker, S. Bryman, A. and Ferguson, H. (2012). Understanding research for social policy and social work: New York: The Policy Press: Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods 4th edition: Social research methods printed and bound in China by C & C Offset Printing Co. Ltd. Bryman, A. (1999) Global Disney in P. Taylor and D. Slater (eds), The American Century. Oxford: Blackwell. CASP, (2001) (Crawford and Walker: 2004). Denzin, N. K (1994) Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research, Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S., (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research: in N.K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hannes, K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (editors), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. [Online] Available at http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance Illife, S. et al, 2000. Smarter Working in Social and Health care (SWISH). Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 6(4), pp. 4-11. Law, M. et al., 1998. Guidelines for Critical Review of Qualitative Studies. Qualitative Studies, pp. 357-362. Manthorpe, Jill. Goodman, C. Harari, D. Swift, C. Lliffe, S (2009). Smarter Working in Social and Health Care: Professional Perspectives on a New Technology for Risk Appraisal with Older People. Oxford Journals, Vol 40(Issue 6), pp. 1829-1846. McLaughlin, H., 2012. Understanding Social Work Research. 2nd Edition Ed. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd. Mitchell, W., Baxter, K. & Glendinning, C., 2012. Updated Review Of Research on the Risk and Adult Social Care in England. JRF Programme Paper, pp. 1-45. Rabinowitz, P., 2012. Qualitative Methods to Assess Community Issues. The Community Tool Box, p. [Online] Available at http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1050.aspx. Sharland, E., 2006. Young People, Risk Taking and Risk Making: Some Thoughts for Social Work. Open Journal Systems, Vol 7(No 1), pp. Art. 23. [Online] Available at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601230 Shaw, I. & Gould, N., 2002. Qualitative Research in Social Work. New York: SAGE. Vishnevsky, T. and Beeanland, H. (2004) Qualitative Research: Nephrol news J 31[2] 234-8. Read More