Qualitative Research

The literature on qualitative methods assumes that researchers will conduct interviews in the course of a participant-observation study but not that extensive observations of interviewees might happen to take place during an interview study. In this article, I raise questions about interview study methodologies, using the example of a life history interview project in which the interviewer stayed at interviewee’s homes, met with them for meals, encountered them at events, and kept careful field notes on all of these incidental ethnographic encounters. Reflecting on the ambivalent status of such incidental ethnographic encounters, I argue that qualitative interview methods suffer from the limitations of positivism because the interview encounter is privileged as the sole source of knowledge. I call for a more flexible approach to qualitative interviews that can accommodate and derive knowledge from the full range of encounters between the researcher and participant.

This article ruminates on a research project comparing the relationships between two mass participation running events (MPREs) – Newcastle’s Great North and Addis Ababa’s Great Ethiopian Run – and their public health, development and place promotion objectives. It argues that the disjuncture between the intentions of the research framework and the actions necessitated by the reality of the field facilitates a deeper engagement with the two interwoven conceptual spheres within which the research is situated: comparative urbanism and event studies. Moreover, it contends that the persistent neglect of the pragmatic challenges of event research within the literature risks underplaying the multi-dimensional networks that link MPREs, their host cities and an emergent global political economy of running and runners. As such, a critical engagement with the methodological conundrums posed by event-led comparative research is not to admit its failure, but rather to demonstrate the importance of flexibility and openness when working across diverse contexts.

Meta-narrative review developed by Greenhalgh and colleagues is a new interpretive systematic review approach within an expanding portfolio of evidence synthesis methods that focus on context, meaning and process. Informed by Kuhn’s notion of scientific paradigms, the method seeks to develop storylines of how research on a given topic unfolds over time, highlighting key discoveries and insights. This article reports how we drew on the meta-narrative approach in a review that examined the changing and contested nature of ‘community’ as understood across disciplines and research traditions. We discuss the challenges that arose in our review and the strengths and limitations of our approach. We conclude that the meta-narrative approach provides a useful framework for making sense of the multiple and changing conceptualisations of community while accounting for historical context. We recommend that an avenue for further development of the method is to consider Foucault’s sociological approach to tracing knowledge.

Synthesising qualitative research involves working through difficult practical issues. Drawing upon our collective experience of undertaking three meta-ethnographies, we consider the forms of work – the practical action and practical reasoning – comprising this kind of synthesis and the difference they make to a meta-ethnography. We detail the origins and aims of meta-ethnography, and present a review of existing meta-ethnographies with a specific focus on the methods the authors reported as central to the conduct of meta-ethnography. We consider the implications of these methods and the reason for the presence (and absence) of particular practices in reporting on meta-ethnographies. Drawing upon our own experiences of conducting meta-ethnographies we focus on the methods used in two key practices central to meta-ethnography: ‘reading’ and ‘conceptual innovation’. We conclude by discussing how the meta-ethnographic process requires active reading, a recognition of multiplicity, a realistic approach to conceptual innovation and, importantly, collaborative work.

We used a multiple-case study to investigate participants’ experiences in interviews from six qualitative studies that differed in interview orientations, designs, methods, participants, and topics. Roulston’s (2010a, 2010b) interview orientation heuristic guided our ‘paradigm-driven’ analysis of participants’ experiences. We found no differences in participants’ articulation of benefits and risks by interview orientation. Participants’ experiences differed based on the opportunity to reflect on their interview experiences, the sensitivity of the topic explored, and the number of interviews conducted. We discuss the implications of our findings for ‘paradigm-driven’ qualitative research and suggest ethical questions qualitative interview researchers can ask to maximize the benefits of their interviews.

Theorizing about how culture influences planned group formation and interaction can be tested through using focus groups as a research method. This article is not about the Omani population, but in higher education, it is useful to depict evaluative research as being cosmopolitan in its approach. Data obtained from eleven focus groups conducted in Oman with nurses assisted the authors of this paper to embrace what it means to respect another culture and enable understanding of that culture. The premise about reflexive methods is to promote the voices of the research team and by reporting a team approach a broader voice can be heard. This paper aims to inform an international audience that taking a traditional perspective when using focus groups can be stereotyped by cultural assumptions. Such stereotypical assumptions did not represent the reality of the design; the study was structured to be culturally sensitive and fit for purpose. Such assumptions can be dismissed if participants are given a choice within the study.

This article is a product of qualitative analyses followed by a collaboration and conversation amongst critical friends. Three methodologies (social semiotic/sociocultural, ethnomethodology, and rhizomatic analysis) were used to analyze the same piece of interview data. An inquiry into the various characteristics, commonalities, and distinctions of these diverse approaches to analysis was then undertaken through extended conversations. Authors worked through the kinds of questions that could be asked and the answers that might be possible given particular theoretical and methodological stances and choices. Analysis of the ensuing inquiry suggests the possibility of deeper reflexivity and new understandings in talking across paradigms. Struggles over representation and compromises in the process created tensions and questions that could not be easily resolved.