For This Assignment, Be Sure To View This Week's Qualitative

For This Assignment Be Sure To View This Weeks Qualitative Research

For this assignment, be sure to view this week’s Qualitative Research Design PowerPoint webinar and pay close attention to its content on the basic elements of qualitative research methods (e.g., sample selection, data collection, plans for interpretive analysis). Then, review the two research studies presented in this week’s resources for this assignment. Note: While not a required resource, you might find the definitions in the Encyclopedia of Nursing Research helpful for this assignment. This assignment involves identifying and describing different elements of the research method used in the Walsh et al. (2015) article.

Focus on the research design, sample selection, data collection methods, and plan for data analysis as discussed in the Walsh et al. (2015) article.

Create 2 pages to identify at least two strengths and two weaknesses of the article’s research method based on trustworthiness. You must provide support for your explanation with citations from additional sources.

Use the Journal Club Template for Qualitative Research located in this week’s resources.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Qualitative research plays a vital role in understanding complex human experiences and social phenomena within healthcare, providing rich, detailed insights that quantitative methods may overlook. Walsh et al. (2015) conducted a qualitative study exploring nursing experiences related to patient care, employing specific research methods that warrant a careful evaluation of their trustworthiness. This paper critically examines the research design, sample selection, data collection methods, and data analysis plan used in Walsh et al. (2015), highlighting two strengths and two weaknesses related to trustworthiness with supporting scholarly citations.

Research Design and Trustworthiness

Walsh et al. (2015) adopted a phenomenological research design, which aims to interpret lived experiences to uncover the essence of participants' perceptions (Creswell, 2013). The phenomenological approach is appropriate for exploring subjective experiences, and its rigor depends on transparent procedures and credibility strategies such as member checking and triangulation (Polit & Beck, 2017). A strength of the research lies in their detailed description of the phenomenological approach, enhancing transparency and rigor (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). Their systematic adherence to phenomenological principles supports trustworthiness by ensuring that findings genuinely reflect participants' perspectives.

However, a limitation related to design concerns the potential for researcher bias inherent in interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Since IPA involves subjective interpretation, the study's trustworthiness depends on the reflexivity of researchers and methodological rigor (Smith et al., 2009). Walsh et al. (2015) addressed this through reflexive journaling, but the lack of detailed documentation on how biases were managed could compromise credibility. Therefore, while the phenomenological design is appropriate, it requires rigorous procedures to maintain trustworthiness, which in this case, could be strengthened.

Sample Selection and Data Collection

The sample selection involved purposive sampling of nurses with diverse clinical experiences to gather rich, relevant data (Patton, 2015). One strength of this method is that purposive sampling ensures participants are information-rich, supporting depth in qualitative inquiry (Merriam & Tisdel, 2016). Additionally, the sample size was adequate to reach data saturation, which enhances the study’s credibility and confirms that the findings are representative of the phenomenon (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006).

Data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews, allowing participants to express their experiences freely while providing enough structure to guide the dialogue (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The use of semi-structured interviews supports trustworthiness through participant validation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Nevertheless, a potential weakness is the reliance on self-reported data, which may introduce social desirability bias or recall bias, potentially impacting credibility (Hall & Callery, 2001). Walsh et al. (2015) mitigated this by establishing rapport and ensuring confidentiality, but additional strategies like member checking post-analysis could have further strengthened trustworthiness.

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

Walsh et al. (2015) employed thematic analysis, a common qualitative data analysis method that involves coding data into themes to interpret meaning systematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Strengths of this approach include transparency and flexibility, supported by the detailed coding process described in the study, which enhances dependability and confirmability (Nowell et al., 2017). The researchers also used peer debriefing to further ensure dependability, facilitating critical discussion of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

A weakness pertains to potential researcher bias during coding and theme development. Although peer debriefing can mitigate this, the study did not specify whether multiple coders independently analyzed data or how discrepancies were resolved, which affects confirmability (Thomas, 2006). Explicit documentation of inter-coder agreement would have increased trustworthiness.

Conclusion

Overall, Walsh et al. (2015) demonstrated strong methodological adherence to qualitative standards, particularly in their purposive sampling and thematic analysis. Nonetheless, areas such as reflexivity and detailed documentation of analysis procedures could have been improved to enhance trustworthiness. Recognizing these strengths and weaknesses enables a better understanding of the rigor underpinning qualitative research and informs future studies' methodological choices.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An empirical study of data saturation in qualitative research. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.

Hall, E., & Callery, P. (2001). Social desirability bias in research with children. Nurse Researcher, 9(3), 55-61.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Wolters Kluwer.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Sage.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.