Other Best Practices (8 Big Tent Criteria, Tracy, 2010)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077800410383121

(a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence.

Qualitative researchers are attentive to the complexities that arise during the data collection process. Being interviewed, observed, or otherwise allowing a researcher a glimpse into your personal life can be extremely vulnerable. Your participants will share with you how they view the world, how they understand themselves, and how they cope with events that happened to them. Conscientious researchers should keep in mind the following topics to ensure the authenticity and trust necessary for ethical, effective data collection.

Power

Power is an issue to consider in all qualitative research methods. It’s really an issue in all types of research (researchers are often in privileged positions to their participants and must be mindful of the influence and power they hold), but it shows up especially prominently in qualitative research because of the in-depth and personal nature of many of these methods. 

First and foremost, interviewers must be aware of and attentive to the power differential between themselves and interview participants. The interviewer sets the agenda and leads the conversation. Qualitative interviewers aim to allow participants to have some control over the topics that are discussed and the extent to which they are discussed, but at the end of the day, the researcher is in charge of the interview and how the data are reported to the public. After the interview is completed, the participant loses the ability to shape the narrative because the researcher is the person who tells the story to the world. As the researcher, you are also asking someone to reveal things about themselves they may not typically share with others. Researchers do not reciprocate by revealing much or anything about themselves. All these factors shape the power dynamics of an interview.

Numerous excellent pieces have been written on issues of power in research and data collection. Of note, feminist researchers have paved the way in helping researchers think about and address issues of power in their work (Oakley, 1981). ^[1] To overcome the power imbalance between researcher and respondent, feminist research suggests that the researcher reveal some aspects of their own identity and story so that the interview is a more reciprocal experience; allowing participants to view and edit interview transcripts before the researcher uses them for analysis; and giving participants an opportunity to read and comment on analyses before the researcher shares it with others through publication or presentation (Reinharz, 1992; Hesse-Biber, Nagy, & Leavy, 2007). ^[2] On the other hand, some researchers note that sharing too much with interview participants can give the false impression there is no power differential, when in reality researchers can analyze and present participants’ stories in whatever way they see fit (Stacey, 1988). ^[3]

Regardless of how you feel about sharing your background with interview participants, another way to balance the power differential is to make the intent of your research very clear to the subjects. Share with them your rationale for conducting the research and the research question(s) that frame your work. Be sure that you also share with participants how the data you gather will be used and stored. Additionally, you should explain to participants how their confidentiality will be protected including who will have access to your data and what procedures, such as using pseudonyms, you will take to protect their identities. Social workers also must disclose the reasons why confidentiality may be violated to prevent danger to self or others. Many of these details will be covered by your IRB’s informed consent procedures and requirements. However, even if they are not, as researchers we should be attentive to how informed consent can help balance the power differences between ourselves and those who participate in our research.

There are no easy answers when it comes to handling the power differential between the researcher and researched. Even social scientists do not agree on the best approach. Qualitative research involves interpersonal interactions and building a relationship with research participants, so power is a particularly important issue.

Location, location, location

One way to address the power between researcher and respondent is to conduct interviews or observations in a location of the participant’s choosing, where they will feel most comfortable. Data collection can take place in any number of locations—in respondents’ homes or offices, researchers’ homes or offices, coffee shops, restaurants, public parks, or hotel lobbies, to name just a few possibilities. Each location comes with its own set of benefits and its own challenges. While I would argue that it is paramount to allow the respondent to choose the most convenient and comfortable location, it is also important to identify a location where there will be few distractions. For example, some coffee shops and restaurants are so loud that recording an interview might be a challenge. Other locations may present different sorts of distractions. For example, if you conduct interviews with parents in their home, they may need to spend more time attending to their children during an interview than responding to your questions (of course, depending on the topic of your research, the opportunity to observe such interactions could be invaluable). You may want to suggest a few possible locations and note the goal of avoiding distractions when you ask your respondents to choose a location.

Of course, the extent to which a respondent chooses a location should be balanced by the accessibility of the location to you (the researcher) and by your safety and comfort level with the location. For example, you may not feel comfortable conducting an interview in an area with posters for hate groups on the wall. Not only might you fear for your safety, but you may be too distracted to conduct a quality interview. While it is important to collect data in a location that is comfortable for respondents, doing so should never come at the expense of your safety.

Researcher-participant relationship

Many qualitative data collection strategies require some social interaction, which means that a relationship is formed between participant and researcher. One essential element in building a productive relationship is respect. Demonstrating respect for participants’ time and story will help them feel comfortable sharing with you.

There are no big secrets or tricks for how to show respect for research participants. At its core, a researcher-participant interaction should not differ from any other social interaction in which you show gratitude for a person’s time and respect for a person’s humanity. It is crucial that you interact with the participant and their community in a way that is culturally sensitive. In some cases, this might mean educating yourself about your study population and even receiving some training to help you learn to effectively communicate with your research participants. Do not judge your research participants. Even if you disagree strongly with what a participant does or shares, your job as the researcher is to gather the information being shared with you, not to make personal judgments about it.

Respect provides a solid foundation for rapport. Rapport is the sense of connection you establish with a participant. Some argue that this term is too clinical, and perhaps it implies that a researcher tricks a participant into thinking they are closer than they really are (Esterberg, 2002). ^[4] The responsibilities of social work clinicians differ significantly from those of a researcher, as clinicians provide services whereas researchers do not. The participant is not your client, and your goals for the interaction are different than those of a clinical relationship.

Reflexivity

#Excerpts from this chapter: https://open.oregonstate.education/qualresearchmethods/chapter/ch-6-reflexivity/#chapter-122-section-2

Another important best practice for qualitative research is reflexivity. Remember our discussion about epistemology in Chapter 1? Qualitative researchers tend to question assertions of absolute fact or reality, unmediated through subject positions and subject knowledge. There are limits to what we know because we are part of the social worlds we inhabit. To use the terminology of standpoint theorists, we have a standpoint from which we observe the world just as much as anyone else. In this, we too are the blind men, and the world is our elephant. None of us are omniscient or neutral observers. Because of this epistemological standpoint, qualitative researchers value the ability to reflect upon and think hard about our own effects on our research. We call this reflexivity. Reflexivity “generally involves the self-examination of how research findings were produced, and, particularly, the role of the researcher in their construction” (Heaton 2004:104).

There are many aspects of being reflexive. First, there is the simple fact that we are human beings with the limitations that come with that condition. We have likes and dislikes, biases, blind spots, preferences, and so on. If we do not take these into account, they can prevent us from being the best researcher we can be. Being reflective means, first and foremost, trying as best as possible to bracket out elements of our own character and understanding that get in the way. It is important to note that bias (in this context, at least) is not inherently wrong. It just is. Unavoidable. But by noting it, we can minimize its impact or, in some cases, help explain more clearly what it is we see or why it is that we are asking the questions we are asking. For example, I might want to communicate to my audience that I grew up poor and that I have a lot of sympathy and concern for first-generation college students as a result. This “bias” of mine motivates me to do the work I do, even as I try to ensure that it does not blind me to things I find out in the course of my research. ^[1]

A second aspect of being reflexive is being aware that you yourself are part of the research when you are conducting qualitative research. This is particularly true when conducting interviews, observing interactions, or participating in activities. You have a body, and it will be “read” by those in the field. You will be perceived as an insider or an outsider, as a friend or foe, as empathetic or hostile. Some of this will be wrong. People will prejudge you based on the color of your skin, your presented gender, the accent of your language. People will classify you based on the clothes you wear, and they will be more open to you if you remind them of a friendly aunt or uncle and more reserved if you remind them of someone they don’t like. This is all natural and inevitable. Your research will suffer if you do not take this into account, if you do not reflect upon how you are being read and how this might be influencing what people tell you or what they are willing to do in front of you. The flip side of this problem is that your particular body and presence will open some doors barred to other researchers. Finding sites and contexts where your presented self is a benefit rather than a burden is an important part of your individual research career. Be honest with yourself about this, and you will be more successful as a qualitative researcher. Learn to leverage yourself in your research.

The third aspect of being reflexive is related to how we communicate our work to others. Being honest with our position, as I am about my own social background and its potential impact on what I study or about how I leveraged my own position to get people to open up to me, helps our audiences evaluate what we have found. Maybe I haven’t entirely eliminated my biases or weaknesses, but by telling my audience who I am and where I potentially stand, they can take account of those biases and weaknesses in their reading of my findings. Letting them know that I wore pink when talking with older men because that made them more likely to be kind to me (a strategy acknowledged by Posselt [2016]) helps them understand the interview context. In other words, my research becomes more reliable when my own social position and the strategies I used are communicated.

Putting oneself at the center of the research is also inappropriate.^[2] The focus should be on what is being researched, and the reflexivity is there to advance the study, not to push it aside. This issue has emerged at times when researchers from dominant social positions reflect upon their social locations vis-à-vis study participants from marginalized locations. A researcher who studies how low-income women of color experience unemployment might need to address her White, upper-class, fully employed social location, but not at the cost of crowding out the stories, lived experiences, and understandings of the women she has interviewed. This can sometimes be a delicate balance, and not everyone will agree that a person has walked it correctly.

Most qualitative researchers include a positionality statement in any “methods section” of their publications. This allows readers to understand the location of the researcher, which is often helpful for gauging reliability. Many journals now require brief positionality statements as well.

How does one become a reflective researcher? Practice! Nearly every great qualitative researcher maintains a reflexive journal (there are exceptions that prove the rule), a type of diary where they record their thinking on the research process itself. This might include writing about the research design (chapter 2), plotting out strategies for sample selection (chapter 6), or talking through what one believes can be known (chapter 3). During analysis, this journal is a place to record ideas and insights and pose questions for further reflection or follow-up studies. This journal should be highly personal. It is a place to record fears, concerns, and hopes as well. Why are you studying what you are studying? What is really motivating you? Being clear with yourself and being able to put it down in words are invaluable to the research process.

One might also consider designing research that includes multiple investigators, particularly those who may not share your preconceptions about the study. For example, if you are studying conservative students on campus, and you yourself thoroughly identify as liberal, you might want to pair up with a researcher interested in the topic who grew up in a conservative household. If you are studying racial regimes, consider creating a racially diverse team of researchers. Or you might include in your research design a component of participatory research wherein members of the community of interest become coresearchers. Even if you can’t form a research team, you can reach out to others for feedback as you move along. Doing research can be a lonely enterprise, so finding people who will listen to you and nudge you to clarify your thinking where necessary or move you to consider an aspect you have missed is invaluable.

Finally, make it a regular part of your practice to write a paragraph reporting your perspectives, positions, values, and beliefs and how these may have influenced the research. This paragraph may be included in publications upon request.

Additional Ethical Concerns

Qualitative researchers must also consider ethical issues throughout the research process, including informed consent, confidentiality, and respectful participant engagement. Chapter 2 provides a more detailed discussion of general research ethics, while Chapter 6, under the heading Quality Qualitative Data, provides specific considerations for qualitative research.