Craftivism as Inquiry: Holding Life’s Threads

Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

In the current era of artificial intelligence, large language models such as ChatGPT and BARD are being increasingly used for various applications, such as language translation, text generation, and human-like conversation. The fact that these models consist of large amounts of data, including many different opinions and perspectives, could introduce the possibility of a new qualitative research approach: Due to the probabilistic character of their answers, “interviewing” these large language models could give insights into public opinions in a way that otherwise only interviews with large groups of subjects could deliver. However, it is not yet clear if qualitative content analysis research methods can be applied to interviews with these models. Evaluating the applicability of qualitative research methods to interviews with large language models could foster our understanding of their abilities and limitations. In this paper, we examine the applicability of qualitative content analysis research methods to interviews with ChatGPT in English, ChatGPT in German, and BARD in English on the relevance of computer science in K-12 education, which was used as an exemplary topic. We found that the answers produced by these models strongly depended on the provided context, and the same model could produce heavily differing results for the same questions. From these results and the insights throughout the process, we formulated guidelines for conducting and analyzing interviews with large language models. Our findings suggest that qualitative content analysis research methods can indeed be applied to interviews with large language models, but with careful consideration of contextual factors that may affect the responses produced by these models. The guidelines we provide can aid researchers and practitioners in conducting more nuanced and insightful interviews with large language models. From an overall view of our results, we generally do not recommend using interviews with large language models for research purposes, due to their highly unpredictable results. However, we suggest using these models as exploration tools for gaining different perspectives on research topics and for testing interview guidelines before conducting real-world interviews.

<div class="WordSection1"><p>I am honored for being an alumnus of KEMC, and am delighted to write this editorial for the Annals. I have, ever since done my research and taught qualitative methods, felt that clinical methods are quite akin to qualitative research. Then, why only few clinical researchers use qualitative methods? A witness to this assumption is the research published in the Annals. In this treatise, I try to identify some parallels between the two types of methods and argue for the clinicians to invest in learning qualitative research methods to practice clinical methods well.</p><p> Qualitative research is to identify and interpret issues from the perspective of participants, their experience of: illness or disability, using health service, and to appreciate the meanings they give to the behaviour, events or objects in the context of their social and cultural norms. In this type of research, the emphasis is on exploring the associations and understanding the phenomenon in its holism; and not, like in quantitative research, from an outsider’s perspective and for certain specific aspects.<sup>1</sup> It requires participants with specific characteristics, selected purposely that can best inform the research topic. More participants, identified inductively during data collection, are added to develop full and multiple perspectives about the cases.<sup>2</sup></p><p> No preset data collection tool is used, instead qualitative researcher guided by a research question acts as an instrument, since the line of enquiry he changes during data collection as new understanding is gained and/or the situation changes.<sup>3</sup> The data for research is derived from the observation, interviews or verbal interactions, focus group discussions, document reviews, life histories etc. and the researcher asks why, how and under what circumstances things occur; and not just what, where and when. It is recorded in words or pictures and log book is used to record notes arising from interviews, observations, extracts from documents etc.</p><p> In health care settings patients are the subjects for clinical methods. The clinician, even prior to any verbal communication, observes the patient, e.g. for his gait and appearance. If in a bed or examination couch, his posture could give some clue to the illness. Inspection, a clinical method, is like systematic observation, which is qualitative method, should be holistic. In my third year during bedside teaching, Professor (late) Rashid Ahmed Qureshi said, <em>“patient has come to you as a whole and not his stomach in a tray”</em>, when a student straight went to examine abdomen of a patient with acute abdomen. History taking, another clinical method, is like conducting semi structured in depth interview – a qualitative research method. In both disciplines, we are told, <em>“not to ask leading, but follow up and probing questions”; </em>and Professor (late) Alamgir Khan, while teaching clinical methods, would add, <em>“if a good history is taken, you will establish diagnosis in over 65% of cases”. </em>Likewise, as part of history taking, documents related to patient’s illness history and treatment are reviewed similar to document review in qualitative research.</p><p> The two approaches however differ in how the data is analysed. In clinical practice, diagnosis is established based on the pathophysiological knowledge or patient’s clinical condition is discussed in clinicopathological conference.<sup>4</sup> On the other hand, qualitative research employs meaning based data analysis, whereby the qualitative data is transformed into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation of people and situation that is investigated.<sup>5,6</sup></p><p> In conclusion, the history, the observation and the review of document related to patient are since obtainned using qualitative methods, the clinician trained in these methods could not only conduct these methods well but also interpret the data to identify and detect obstacles to the change in clinical condition and the reasons why improvement does or does not occur.<sup>7</sup> Finally, while it is heartening that research forums are organised in the institutions affiliated with KEMU, in order the research is richer, the researchers’ skills in qualitative research methods should be built.</p></div>

Qualitative research has gained greater attention in medical research, but it might seem to be unscientific because qualitative and quantitative research methods are grounded in different paradigm. In this article, we introduce three major qualitative research methods frequently used in studies of patient-doctor communications: 1) in-depth interviews; 2) focus group interviews; and, 3) semi-structured interviews. Each qualitative research method has different or common advantages and disadvantages, and which methods should be used depends on the study objectives. Qualitative research and quantitative research are complementary: while quantitative research explains the prevalence or variation of an issue, qualitative research explains the reasons or processes of that prevalence or variation. Combination of the two methods enables the gathering of more comprehensive and explanatory results.

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Background. The use of qualitative research (QR) methods is recommended as good practice in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This study investigated the use and reporting of QR to inform the design and/or interpretation of healthcare-related DCEs and explored the perceived usefulness of such methods. Methods. DCEs were identified from a systematic search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were classified by the quantity of QR reported (none, basic, or extensive). Authors (n = 91) of papers reporting the use of QR were invited to complete an online survey eliciting their views about using the methods. Results. A total of 254 healthcare DCEs were included in the review; of these, 111 (44%) did not report using any qualitative methods; 114 (45%) reported “basic” information; and 29 (11%) reported or cited “extensive” use of qualitative methods. Studies reporting the use of qualitative methods used them to select attributes and/or levels (n = 95; 66%) and/or pilot the DCE survey (n = 26; 18%). Popular qualitative methods included focus groups (n = 63; 44%) and interviews (n = 109; 76%). Forty-four studies (31%) reported the analytical approach, with content (n = 10; 7%) and framework analysis (n = 5; 4%) most commonly reported. The survey identified that all responding authors (n = 50; 100%) found that qualitative methods added value to their DCE study, but many (n = 22; 44%) reported that journals were uninterested in the reporting of QR results. Conclusions. Despite recommendations that QR methods be used alongside DCEs, the use of QR methods is not consistently reported. The lack of reporting risks the inference that QR methods are of little use in DCE research, contradicting practitioners’ assessments. Explicit guidelines would enable more clarity and consistency in reporting, and journals should facilitate such reporting via online supplementary materials.

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

Background Qualitative research has made great strides in recent years and it now makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and illness. But there are still many practitioners, academics and researchers who are totally bemused by its principles and practices. Content In the first of a series of three articles exploring qualitative research philosophies, methodologies and methods, I attempt to unravel some of its complexities and peculiarities, in the hope that those readers new to qualitative research will study it further and consider using it in the future. This article deals with broad questions of philosophy; most especially the fundamental difference between a quantitative and qualitative worldview. Conclusions This article explores the difference between a belief in a single objective reality and multiple realities, and relates these to quantitative and qualitative research methods. It also considers the role of theory, focusing on the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. These concepts are the basis for the second article in the series on qualitative methodologies, to appear in the next issue.

ObjectiveThere has been little to no qualitative research done with adolescents and young adults (AYA) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) that can guide creation of interventions for this demographic. Using qualitative research methods, a novel mind–body intervention called Intervention for Early Onset Type 2 Diabetes (INTEND) has been developed for AYA aged 15 to 20 years, with the goal of improving self-management and coping skills, by enhancing routine care with augmented education coupled with mind–body skills.MethodQualitative interviews with AYA 15 to 20 years of age with T2D, their parents, and professionals caring specifically for this population were done through a focus group model. Transcripts were created, depersonalized, and coded using a Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) method. Identified themes then guided the creation of course materials that included education about self-management of T2D and how to use the 4 mind–body technique toward self-care and regulation.ResultsThe qualitative approach used in the development of this intervention revealed important findings in understanding key barriers faced by this group, key facilitators that improve their quality of life, and core components of an intervention that would be acceptable to them.ConclusionResults of this qualitative study helped craft an intervention tool that can subsequently be deployed and evaluated for effectiveness. Findings of the qualitative research model allow us to better understand the lived experience of AYA living with T2D.Clinical guidance•Stigma of type 2 diabetes in adolescents may interfere with patients’ ability to adequately adhere to treatment recommendations•Clinicians need to identify social supports for adolescents with type 2 diabetes•Identifying family members and including them in treatment plans may help adolescents with type 2 diabetes

This research aims to explain the skills of guiding discussions in small groups and individuals. using descriptive methods in qualitative research. The descriptive method in research is research for the purpose of explaining or describing events, objects, circumstances, or variables which are explained using numbers and words. The type of descriptive method in qualitative research is a type of library research from document literature from various sources related to the skills of guiding discussions and small groups and individuals. The skill of guiding small group discussions carried out by teachers is a teacher trainee skill. In teaching activities there are times when conducting group discussion activities. Discussion activities involve mental and emotional activities that can improve interpersonal relationships. So the teacher's skills in guiding small group discussions are needed to ensure the continuation of the discussion effectively. In this learning, the learning atmosphere is developed for... critical thinking and problem solving skills, collaboration and communication, creativity and innovation.

The editors of this book are medical/physician anthropologists working in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Connecticut.The other sixteen contributors to this very readable and informative book are all involved in research and are working in Departments of Family Medicine or in Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics.The book itself evolved from a work-shop on qualitative research held in Quebec in May 1989.It was during the 80's that qualitative research methods were developed by family medicine practitioners, and their complementarity to quantitative research methods explored.Doing Qualitative Research is volume three in a series of books on research methods for primary care.Its aim is to make qualitative research more accessible to primary health care researchers.Its usefulness certainly goes beyond this.The studies described in this book shed light on three important questions.How can health-seeking behaviour be understood?.How do primary health care providers become what they are?What goes on when primary health care seekers encounter clinical providers?As one reads this book and becomes familiar with the methods described, it becomes evident that these research methods can also be applied to other related questions.'Primary health care' can be replaced with 'mental health care' for example.Thus the scope of this book extends beyond qualitative research methods in Family Medicine.In this book the editors provide a 'smorgasboard' of qualitative approaches.Clear descriptions of the most important aspects of qualitative research are given.This includes data collection strategies (Chs.2-4), the specifics for different types of analysis (Chs.5-10).and reports on completed studies .Each of these chapters with the aid of really good concrete examples describes a specific qualitative method, the context in which it is most useful, and how its trustworthiness can be assessed.These eleven chapters are neatly sandwiched between the first chapter, giving an excellent overview of research approaches, and a final reflective chapter that includes a reminder that the 'sciences of the spirit speak to a different part of us than the sciences of nature'.As a newcomer to qualitative research I found that the first chapter was a very helpful preparation for the richness that follows.The many figures and tables provide helpful summaries that are also

This review makes a point in favor of the assertion made for the book that it is a practical introduction to the qualitative research in applied linguistics. The book consists of four parts: an overview of qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data collection methods, ethical practice issues and the writing of research reports. After proving a rich introduction to the qualitative research, the book discusses qualitative research approaches using a reader-friendly and interactive structure: pre-reading and post-reading questions along with the list of further readings. Then the data collection tools have been thoroughly discussed. What makes this book more useful is the use of illustrative examples for each qualitative research approach and data collection tool. The last part discusses core issues of ethics and drafting a research report. From the perspective of a novice researcher, it has achieved the goal of educating readers about qualitative research methods and data collection tools, as it gradually tracks the reader and provides them with a linking concept for a better understanding. However, reference to one study for both ethnography and case study remains a confusing point. Besides, the review suggests addition of some images to make reading of the book more interesting, especially for visual learners. Besides, a diagram should be given at the end of research methods chapters to outline the steps taken by researchers to do their studies.

This chapter provides a short description of the key informant interview (KII), an important data collection method in qualitative research. Then, the chapter explains the suitability of this method in qualitative research. The chapter discusses the selection process of key informants with the roles of researcher and interviewer. The chapter gives important guidelines of the steps to conduct KII. The chapter also provides some guidelines about the data process, data presentation, and data analysis strategies of KII. The chapter ends with a description of the advantages and disadvantages of KII.KeywordsSocial research; Qualitative research; Interview; Key informants

Truth that Matters

Metadiscourse marker is one of determining indicators of the quality of the writers� writing. Metadiscourse markers enable the writers to interact with the readers effectively. What commonly happens to many undergraduate students studying English as a foreign language is that they are not able to develop an engagement between themselves, their texts, and their readers. Thus, this study investigates the types of metadiscourse markers used by Unimus EFL learners in final project introduction sections, and markers that are frequently used by them in their writing. By using qualitative and quantitative research method, seven introduction sections of final project of Unimus EFL learners focusing on qualitative and qualitative research methods were chosen purposively. As result, the study revealed that in writing introduction sections, the students used various metadiscourse markers, including interactive resources (transitions, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials, and code glosses) and interactional resources (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mensions). Among those categories, interactive resources were found to be frequently used by the learners rather than interactional resources. It means that the writers tended to give attention to and guided the readers through the text by establishing their interpretations explicitly rather than involving the readers in the argument through the use of markers in interactional dimension.