Book contents
- The Future of Qualitative Research in Healthcare
- The Future of Qualitative Research in Healthcare
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Introduction to Digital Platforms and Digital Research Approaches, Encryption, Cybersecurity and Bandwidth
- Chapter 2 Doing Digital Qualitative Research
- Chapter 3 Using Video Diaries for Remote Observational Research
- Chapter 4 (In)Equitable Shifts
- Chapter 5 “To Be or Not to Be?” Qualitative Research upon and during a Pandemic Outbreak
- Chapter 6 Adopting Digital Methods
- Chapter 7 Lessons Learned Conducting Online Qualitative Interviews during Covid-19
- Chapter 8 Virtual Interviewing in the Age of Covid-19
- Chapter 9 Minimizing the Impact Technology Has on Interviewer–Interviewee Rapport
- Chapter 10 Participatory and Invasive Online Worlds
- Chapter 11 Using Online Survey Tools to Improve Access to International Experts
- Chapter 12 Refining Interview Protocols for Online Interviews on the Employment of Persons with Down Syndrome
- Chapter 13 Technology-Aided Programs to Support Leisure, Communication, and Daily Activities in People with Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities
- Chapter 14 Virtual Qualitative Data Collection
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Chapter 5 - “To Be or Not to Be?” Qualitative Research upon and during a Pandemic Outbreak
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 November 2024
Book contents
- The Future of Qualitative Research in Healthcare
- The Future of Qualitative Research in Healthcare
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Introduction to Digital Platforms and Digital Research Approaches, Encryption, Cybersecurity and Bandwidth
- Chapter 2 Doing Digital Qualitative Research
- Chapter 3 Using Video Diaries for Remote Observational Research
- Chapter 4 (In)Equitable Shifts
- Chapter 5 “To Be or Not to Be?” Qualitative Research upon and during a Pandemic Outbreak
- Chapter 6 Adopting Digital Methods
- Chapter 7 Lessons Learned Conducting Online Qualitative Interviews during Covid-19
- Chapter 8 Virtual Interviewing in the Age of Covid-19
- Chapter 9 Minimizing the Impact Technology Has on Interviewer–Interviewee Rapport
- Chapter 10 Participatory and Invasive Online Worlds
- Chapter 11 Using Online Survey Tools to Improve Access to International Experts
- Chapter 12 Refining Interview Protocols for Online Interviews on the Employment of Persons with Down Syndrome
- Chapter 13 Technology-Aided Programs to Support Leisure, Communication, and Daily Activities in People with Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities
- Chapter 14 Virtual Qualitative Data Collection
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
Qualitative research has much to contribute to our knowledge regarding lived experiences in a crisis, but most research in the context of crises is quantitative. Domains of qualitative research remain under-represented. Qualitative researchers bear the responsibility to voice populations who may be already struggling in a health crisis. This chapter aims to disentangle a few dilemmas of qualitative researchers in planning and implementing rigorous research upon and during an outbreak of a crisis. Initial dilemmas are whether and how to conduct a qualitative study during the outbreak or retrospectively; how may the researcher access study populations; and how the researcher may encourage participation. Other dilemmas concern obtaining informed consent, determining the right timing and length for the interviews, and creating interviewee--interviewer trust and intimacy. The dilemmas following data collection relate to the quality criteria of data analysis.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Future of Qualitative Research in HealthcareThe Role and Management of Digital Methods, pp. 52 - 67Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Ames, D, Maissen, LB, & Brockner, J (2012) The role of listening in interpersonal influence. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(3): 345–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E, & Corneli, A (2018) 100 Questions (and answers) about research ethics (Vol. 5). SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annelli, C (2020) Teachers, students and social margins on the Italian screen. Italica, 97(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archibald, MM, Ambagtsheer, RC, Casey, MG, & Lawless, M (2019) Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18: 1609406919874596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attride-Stirling, J (2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3): 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, JB, Coates, L, & Johnson, T (2000) Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6): 941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodie, GD (2012) Listening as positive communication. In Socha, T & Pitts, M (eds) The Positive Side of Interpersonal Communication. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 109–125.Google Scholar
Castro, DR, Kluger, AN, & Itzchakov, G (2016) Does avoidance-attachment style attenuate the benefits of being listened to? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(6): 762–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, N, & Arieli, T (2011) Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4): 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cope, DG (2014) Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(1): 89–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denzin, NK, & Lincoln, YS (2008) Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1–32.Google Scholar
Egan, G (2013) The Skilled Helper: A Problem-Management and Opportunity-Development Approach to Helping. Chicago: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Forrester, MA, & Sullivan, C (2018) Doing Qualitative Research in Psychology: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Limited.Google Scholar
Gabay, G (2019) Patient self-worth and communication barriers to trust of Israeli patients in acute-care physicians at public general hospitals. Qualitative Health Research, 29(13): 1954–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabay, G, & Shafran-Tikva, S (2020) Sexual harassment of nurses by patients and missed nursing care: A hidden population study. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(8): 1881–1887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guba, EG, & Lincoln, YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(163–194): 105.Google Scholar
Hall, J, Gaved, M, & Sargent, J (2021) Participatory research approaches in times of Covid-19: A narrative literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20: 16094069211010087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, K, Yeomans, M, Brooks, AW, et al. (2017) It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3): 430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itzchakov, G, & Kluger, AN (2017) Can holding a stick improve listening at work? The effect of Listening Circles on employees’ emotions and cognitions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5): 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itzchakov, G & Kluger, AN (2019) Changing the other party’s attitude with high quality listening. In Schneider, A & Honeyman, C (eds) Negotiation Essentials for Lawyers. American Bar Association, 129–134.Google Scholar
Itzchakov, G, Castro, DR, & Kluger, A (2016) If you want people to listen to you, tell a story. International Journal of Listening, 30(3): 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itzchakov, G, DeMarree, KG, Kluger, AN, et al. (2018) The listener sets the tone: High-quality listening increases attitude clarity and behavior-intention consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(5): 762–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itzchakov, G, Kluger, AN, & Castro, DR (2017) I am aware of my inconsistencies but can tolerate them: The effect of high-quality listening on speakers’ attitude ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itzchakov, G, Kluger, A, Emanuel-Tor, M, et al. (2014) How do you like me to listen to you? International Journal of Listening, 28(3) 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itzchakov, G (2020) Can listening training empower service employees? The mediating roles of anxiety and perspective-taking. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(6): 938–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, GA, & Vindrola-Padros, C (2017) Rapid qualitative research methods during complex health emergencies: A systematic review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 189, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Josselson, R (2013) Interviewing for Qualitative Inquiry: A Relational Approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kluger, A, Malloy, TE, Pery, S, et al. (2021) Dyadic listening in teams: Social relations model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 70(3): 1045–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S, & Cavallaro, L (2018) Researcher self-care in emotionally demanding research: A proposed conceptual framework. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4): 648–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K, Rhodes, T, & Rosengarten, M (2020) Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies: Lessons from COVID-19 for adaptive evidence-making and intervention. Evidence and Policy, 16(3): 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavee, E (2017) Low-income women’s encounters with social services: Negotiation over power, knowledge and respectability. British Journal of Social Work, 47(5): 1554–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavee, E, & Itzchakov, G (2021) Good listening: A key element in establishing quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 14687941211039402.Google Scholar
Lincoln, YS, Lynham, SA, & Guba, EG (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4(2), 97–128.Google Scholar
Lobe, B, & Morgan, DL (2021) Assessing the effectiveness of video-based interviewing: A systematic comparison of video-conferencing based dyadic interviews and focus groups. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(3): 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longman, C (2008) Sacrificing the career or the family?: Orthodox Jewish women between secular work and the sacred home. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 15(3), 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lune, H, & Berg, BL (2016) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 8th ed. Long Beach: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Mays, N, & Pope, C (2020) Quality in qualitative research. In Qualitative Research in Health Care. 4th ed. New Jersey: Wiley, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, SI (2017) Vulnerable listening: Possibilities and challenges of doing qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 4(3): 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirick, RG, & Wladkowski, SP (2019) Skype in qualitative interviews: Participant and researcher perspectives. The Qualitative Report, 24(12): 3061–3072.Google Scholar
Morrow, SL (2005) Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2): 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, J (2020) The changing face of qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, JM (2007) Ethics in action: Ethical principles for doing qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8): 1003–1005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morse, JM (2015) Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9): 1212–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemec, PB, Spagnolo, AC, & Soydan, AS (2017) Can you hear me now? Teaching listening skills. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 40(4): 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, LS, Norris, JM, White, DE, & Moules, NJ (2017) Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1): 1609406917733847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasupathi, M, & Billitteri, J (2015) Being and becoming through being heard: Listener effects on stories and selves. International Journal of Listening, 29(2): 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollak, KI, Alexander, SC, Tulsky, JA, et al. (2011) Physician empathy and listening: associations with patient satisfaction and autonomy. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 24(6): 665–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahman, SA, Tuckerman, L, Vorley, T, & Gherhes, C (2021) Resilient research in the field: Insights and lessons from adapting qualitative research projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211016106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, RP, & Sohi, RS (1997) Listening to your customers: The impact of perceived salesperson listening behavior on relationship outcomes. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 25(2): 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rier, DA, Schwartzbaum, A, & Heller, C (2008) Methodological issues in studying an insular, traditional population: A women’s health survey among Israeli Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews. Women & Health, 48(4): 363–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringel, S (2007) Identity and gender roles of Orthodox Jewish women: Implications for social work practice. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 77(2–3): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, CR, & Roethlisberger, FJ (1991) HBR classic – barriers and gateways to communication (Reprinted from Harvard Business Review, 1952). Harvard Business Review, 69(6): 105–111.Google Scholar
Salganik, MJ, & Heckathorn, DD (2004) Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent‐driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 34(1): 193–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, K, Abdeljawad, T, Mahariq, I, & Jarad, F (2020) Qualitative analysis of a mathematical model in the time of COVID-19. BioMed Research International, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5098598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, MT (2011) Please hear what I’m not saying: The art of listening in the clinical encounter. The Permanente Journal, 15(2): 114–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreen, M (1992) Rare populations, hidden populations, and link-tracing designs: What and why? Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 36(1): 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, W (2008) Clean Language: Revealing Metaphors and Opening Minds. New York: Crown House Publishing.Google Scholar
Teti, M, Schatz, E, & Liebenberg, L (2020) Methods in the Time of COVID-19: The vital role of qualitative inquiries. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920920962.Google Scholar
Teti, M, Pichon, L & Myroniuk, TW (2021) Community-engaged qualitative scholarship during a pandemic: Problems, perils and lessons learned. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211025455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, SK, & Collins, LM (2002) Adaptive sampling in research on risk-related behaviors. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjora, A (2018) Qualitative Research as Stepwise-Deductive Induction. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, SJ, & Hinrichs, MM (2017) Big tent criteria for qualitative quality. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, SJ (2010) Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10): 837–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unadkat, S, & Farquhar, M (2020) Doctors’ wellbeing: Self-care during the Covid-19 pandemic. BMJ, 368. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1150.Google Scholar
Van Bavel, JJ, Baicker, K, Boggio, PS, et al. (2020) Using social and behavioral science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behavior, 1–12. doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.Google Scholar
Vindrola-Padros, C, Chisnall, G, Cooper, S, et al. (2020) Carrying out rapid qualitative research during a pandemic: Emerging lessons from COVID-19. Qualitative Health Research, 30(14): 2192–2204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320951526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vindrola-Padros, C, & Johnson, GA (2020) Rapid techniques in qualitative research: A critical review of the literature. Qualitative Health Research, 30(10): 1596–1604. doi.org/10.1177/1049732320921835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walby, K, & Luscombe, A (2017) Criteria for quality in qualitative research and use of freedom of information requests in the social sciences. Qualitative Research, 17(5): 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, K, Johnson, A, & Corrigan, M (2004) Communicating emotional support and its relationship to feelings of being understood, trust, and self-disclosure. Communication Research Reports, 21(3): 316–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, S (2017) Using internet video calls in qualitative (longitudinal) interviews: Some implications for rapport. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6): 613–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalcberg, S (2015) “They won’t speak to me, but they will talk to you”: On the challenges facing a woman researcher doing fieldwork among male Ultra-Orthodox victims of sexual abuse. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies & Gender Issues (29): 108–132.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y, & Wildemuth, BM (2009) Unstructured interviews. In Wildemuth, B. (ed.) Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science (pp. 222–231). Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar