Qualitative Social Research: Critical Methods for Social Change

This study explores foundations of qualitative social work research. A template-based review was completed on 100 articles from social work journals. Reviewers examined five things: (1) purpose or aims of research, (2) rationale or justification for work, (3) populations studied, (4) presence of four markers (addressing theory, paradigm, reflexivity, and power dynamics), and (5) implications presented. Results underscore exploratory nature of qualitative social work research; authors were most likely to use word explore and least likely to use term to describe their aims. The most common rationale given for research was a gap in literature (77%), followed by severity or extent of problem (50%). Authors emphasized perspectives of respondents, who were most likely to be social work practitioners (39%) or clients (28%). Among markers examined, authors were most likely to mention use of theory (55%) and a research paradigm (51%) and least likely to apply reflexivity (16%) or acknowledge power dynamics inherent in research (7%). Finally, authors were most likely to identify practice implications in their work (90%), followed by research (60%), theory (38%), and policy (29%). KEY WORDS: epistemology; qualitative methods; research methods; social work research; theory Social inquiry is shaped by epistemology of researcher, his or her underlying assumptions about process of knowing (Denzin, 2002). Epistemology may be seen as theories of knowledge that justify knowledge-building process that is actively or consciously adopted by (Carter & Little, 2007; Pascale, 2010). These assumptions guide our decisions about topics, research questions, theories, methods, analyses, and conclusions and help us evaluate knowledge contributions of published work (Carter & Little, 2007; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Pascale, 2010). Koch and Hamngton (1998) recognized that bring to research product, data generated, a range of literature, a positioning of this literature, a positioning of oneself, and moral socio-political contexts (p. 882). Examining ways our social locations shape our process of knowing can help us understand why certain questions get asked and answered, examine how values shape observation (Pascale, 2010; Takacs, 2003, p. 37). Anastas (2004) noted that researcher's epistemology affects kind of scholarly work done, how one values scholarship and understands its political import, and how one situates oneself in relation to work. Marshall and Rossman (2006) noted importance of epistemological integrity, in which authors account for logical and compelling connections between genre, overall strategy, research questions, design, and (p. 55). Researchers demonstrate their engagement with work through explicit discussion of their research paradigm or inquiry tradition, which is fundamental for rigorous qualitative research (Anastas, 2004; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Qualitative research should reveal a consistency and integrity of approach that is easily recognized by reader and reviewer (Padgett, 2009, p. 102). Given importance of epistemology to research endeavor, social work researchers must make explicit decisions made in process of inquiry if they are serious about contributing to knowledge base of profession. As Padgett pointed out, the burden of proof is on researcher (p. 102) to be accountable to readers regarding underlying assumptions and logic of our work. We focus our discussion on epistemology as research praxis that contributes to development of knowledge in our field. Our aim in this section of article is to discuss practice of epistemology to support social work researchers using qualitative methods to think and write more explicitly about foundations of our work. …

Australia employs an evidence-based approach to public health policy, emphasizing disease prevention, health promotion, and healthcare access that is informed by relevant research. However, implementing effective policy can be challenging due to the complexity of various public health issues. Social and behavioral factors significantly impact individual and community health outcomes, necessitating a deeper understanding of their interrelationships. Social science theories and methodologies provide critical insights into the complex relationships between individuals and society. This perspective paper highlights the critical role of qualitative social science research in shaping public policy by offering rich, contextual insights that quantitative data alone cannot capture. This article examines the benefit of incorporating qualitative social science research in a New South Wales (NSW) local health district's pursuit of evidence-based approaches. Through five case studies, we demonstrate how qualitative social science research has been instrumental in addressing key public health challenges, particularly in managing zoonotic diseases and pandemics, ultimately informing and shaping public health policy.

We are our own subjects. How our subjectivity becomes entangled in the lives of others is and has always been our topic. (Denzin 27)This article reflects on the process of disclosing the ethnographic self, particularly in relation to the use of e-mails and social networking sites, such as Facebook. Previous work has examined virtual ethnography as the main research method or its place within a mixed method approach (Orgad; Hine, Virtual Ethnography; Fay; Greschke). My focus lies on the voluntary and involuntary intertwining of physical ethnographic work (i.e. going to a specific location to immerse oneself in a culture) and the virtual relations formed with informants in the course of such fieldwork. Connecting with informants on Facebook has brought a new dimension to the active approach of impression management that is encouraged in traditional texts on ethnography and participant observation (Hammersley and Atkinson; Taylor and Bogdan; Ellen). Examples are drawn from my experience of three phases of geographically located fieldwork for my thesis on Spanish- and English-language media and the Cuban-American community in Miami, Florida, and from online “repercussions” of my physical presence in the field.In an ideal (research) world, the process of immersing oneself in a culture, studying and understanding its values, dynamics and symbolism is paired with professional and personal distance and reflexivity. Most of the time, the reality of fieldwork does not adhere to this ideal (Kleinman and Copp). Data collection does not take place in a void. On the contrary, it is a personal, emotional, embodied and challenging experience in which the researcher’s persona is highly involved: “If informants are people and have rights that affect ethical practice, ethnographers are also human and have identities that affect research practice” (Brewer 99).The researcher’s identity has a strong influence on the research process, but the same holds true the other way around. Ethnographic encounters have an effect on the ethnographer’s sense of identity or sense of self. The researcher’s identity, just like the informant’s, is ever-changing and in a constant process of negotiation that continues throughout the ethnographic experience. As Sarah Pink (47) points out, individuals not only position themselves and their identity in relation to others, but also in relation to objects and discourses (see also: Miller).Therefore the process of relating to the field does not end with physically removing oneself from it (Coffey). Dealing, relating and “coming to terms” with the field and those we encounter is much more complex. The assumption made that the researcher would not be influenced by this, meaning that the field has no impact whatsoever on the one collecting data, has been challenged severely, often by feminist scholars among others, over the past decades (Hey; Roberts; Berger).Establishing and positioning oneself and one’s role in the field can be a daunting process (Lindner). It can be informed by fears of acceptance, uncertainties about conventions not (fully) understood yet and the underlying dynamics one still hopes to uncover. The process of role(s) and identity negotiation of the researcher in the field goes on when writing the field, going through field notes and making sense of what we have experienced (Okely). So even though strict temporal and spatial boundaries might never have existed to the extent ethnography textbooks would have us believe, the use of e-mails and social networking sites have brought the field even closer to home. I have structured the following reflections on disclosing the ethnographic self in face-to-face conversations, that is, exposures made while being physically present in the field, and those taking place online. However, it is worth remembering that this is an artificial distinction as they are clearly interlinked and can overlap in time. Disclosure in Face-to-Face ConversationsWith establishing and negotiating one’s identity in the field and fieldwork relations comes the question of how much to disclose of oneself. How much should informants know about me? There are obvious ethical requirements: Every researcher should be clear about scope and aim of the research project, institutional affiliations, the way data will be stored and used (Mauthner et al.). But beyond that, how much of myself do I have to expose? What stands in the way of a straight-forward answer is the undefined nature of relationships of those we meet in the field: “Fieldwork relationships are at once professional and personal, yet not necessarily readily characterized as either”(Coffey 39).Arguably, there is not one right way to proceed, as it depends on the kind of field the researcher is finding herself in, her personality, role, identity and the type of relationship she wishes to establish with informants. The process of relationship-building to the field as a whole as constructed in the ethnographer’s mind and to individuals in the field is of course ongoing and very likely to evolve and change over time. This applies not only to the relationships built but also to the researcher’s sense of self and how he or she relates to those encountered in the field. It is partly in and through these encounters that the researcher’s understanding of self is influenced, shaped and negotiated on a continual basis. During three phases of fieldwork in 2006, 2007 and 2008 I interviewed over 40 Hispanic journalists, media executives and active members of the Cuban-American community in Miami, Florida. How much was I willing to disclose of myself during these encounters and subsequent e-mail exchanges? Should I correct informants when they wrongly assumed I was British because I was based at a British institution? Do they need to know why I have chosen to research this particular topic and them as a group, why I was based at a Scottish university and what brought me to the U.K. in the first place? The answers were no secrets, but neither was I comfortable to share them with all informants I met in the field. Gender and age-related dynamics came into play here with the majority of interviewees being male and significantly older than me (Easterday). At times, I was uneasy when it came to talking about myself. While I defined the majority of my initial relations as mostly, though not entirely, professional, some interviewees did have a different take on this. In particular, I felt that one interviewee who after the interview started asking me personal questions about my move to Scotland, clearly overstepped an invisible line, although it would have been perfectly alright from my perspective to ask him questions similar, though different in tone, within the context of an interview. A further aspect of disclosure within the context of ethnographic work is the open discussion of the research process with informants. Although this can be very fruitful, it can also be source of scorn and end in closed doors, especially in the highly polarised field I was researching: Once interviews were finished, some interviewees would ask whom I had interviewed previously—maybe just out of interest, maybe to go on and suggest future interviewees. I had never considered in detail what kind of reactions interviewees might have by my naming of previous contacts because for one, reactions had so far been positive and secondly, all interviewees had some understanding of what research entails and that I would naturally want to speak to as many people and as many “sides” as possible. In one particular case, though, the interviewee showed clear disapproval of my talking to a journalist at a well-known Miami-based newspaper. At the time, I did not take this minor condemnation very seriously, but in retrospect it turned out that this interviewee could have been a valuable source for further information and contacts. It taught me that it is wise to hold my cards closer to my chest in such a sensitive environment. This does not mean, however, that secrecy and constant striving towards a neutral position is always the best way to proceed, nor a believable position to hold as Kloos (511) found out: “One of the clergymen in Eastern Flevoland asked me once: ‘Do you have any opinions of your own?’”Virtual Exposure and DisclosurePrevious studies underlined that relationships forged and maintained online mirror offline everyday-life contacts, interests, concerns and vice versa. (Castells; Miller and Slater) For ethnographers whose informants have ready Internet access, this can bring significant advantages as well as challenges. Contacting informants whom I had heard about but not yet met in person by e-mail proved an extremely useful approach. An e-mail allowed me to say a few words about myself and introduce my research project. If there was no response to the e-mail, I was much more comfortable to call the person at this stage—rather than before an e-mail had been sent. E-mails proved a very successful way in contacting informants, thanking people after the interview and exchanging further information that had been touched upon in conversation. What surprised me, however, was that e-mails were also used by interviewees to contact me months after I had been in touch with them and had physically left the field. On a couple of occasions, interviewees sent me information that they thought was essential for my research or, in fact, asked me to fill out a questionnaire and comment on matters relating to my research topic. My role in the field and my relation to informants had turned from researcher to research participant, or interviewee in this case.While e-mails offer a rather controlled environment when approaching informants, other information about the researcher might be more unpredictable and harder to control or manage. I sometimes found myself wondering what information about me informants would find when they Googled my name. How would they combine and make

Digital features like virtual reality have hardly been used in the framework of data collection in qualitative social work research. Virtual reality holds specific promise because it allows the immersion of participants in a situation and has the potential to strengthen the ecological validity of data. In this light, we examined the use of a virtual reality serious game in qualitative in-person interviews in the framework of a prevention-oriented HIV social research project. We designed and developed an immersive virtual reality serious game, and integrated it into 24 problem-centred in-person interviews. The integration was feasible, and the virtual reality serious game was well accepted. It prompted participants to elaborate their lived experiences more extensively and in depth. Participants subsequently recalled episodes they had not mentioned before, complemented their narratives and brought up new topics. The atmosphere became less formal, and participants were even more communicative. The use of virtual reality seems to have the potential to open up new perspectives, broaden epistemic possibilities and complement the qualitative methods used to investigate, in particular, verbal and non-verbal communication and interaction processes. From an ethical perspective, the use of virtual reality should be well reflected upon regarding possible after-effects for the participants.

Qualitative social science research is fundamentally embedded in grounded theory concerned with how the social world is interpreted, realized, understood and experienced, or produced. Qualitative investigation seeks answers to their questions in the realistic world. They congregate what they see, hear and read from the people and places and from events and activities and their main purpose are to learn about some aspects of the social world and to generate new understandings that can be used by that social world. The main objective of this study is the interpretation of social world especially of cultures and people’s life-ways rather than seeking causal explanations for social-cultural practices. Nevertheless, in very rapidly changing information dominated globalized world, innovative traditions of the perception of emerging local and global contexts and realities need to be exposed and accepted as well as practiced in qualitative social science research. Janapriya Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. III (December 2014), page: 54-61

Local government departments charged with the responsibility of engaging with their communities require a codified evidence base for designing and delivering engagement initiatives. This is vital if the engagement initiative is to take effective account of the often multifarious and divergent needs that present within the community. This was the case for the Community Development and Facilities Branch of the Toowoomba Regional Council in Queensland, which in partnership with social researchers based in an Australian regional university set about developing a sequenced professional development programme that up‐skilled council staff in field‐based qualitative research approaches. This article addresses findings from this collaboration, as well as detailing more broadly the role qualitative social research might play in local government community engagement practice. Core concerns are how the views, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes of a community might be gathered through qualitative social research and the ways in which this might inform engagement initiatives.

In an increasingly globalized world of research, communicating with scholars in the same language and culture and with scholars from other cultures and linguistic background is a sine qua non in/of all sciences, including those using qualitative social research. The nature of language is at least latently recognized especially by those scholars who communicate with their peers in a non- native language, such as English, which has become de facto the scientific lingua franca. Although many are aware of the difficulties of rendering something a scholar wants to say in another language, the nature of language as a non-self-identical process is hardly if ever articulated. Instead, the metaphysical idea of the same meanings that can be rendered in multiple languages by means of translation—literally, carried across—is endemic to the scientific culture. In the very definition of science (e.g., in the description of research methods), experiments must operate the same (must be reproducible) wherever and by whomever these are conducted. In this contribution to the debate concerning translation, conducted in the context of the FQS debate Quality of Qualitative Research, I articulate theoretical and pragmatic dimensions on the topic, drawing on empirical investigations, literary works, and philosophical investigations to explicate how translation is both theoretically impossible and pervasively achieved in/as everyday praxis.

Reflexivity has become a buzz-word in the social sciences. In this article I provide a critical discussion of the concept of reflexivity and its use in qualitative social research in educational contexts. I argue that one of the dilemmas of a lot of literature on reflexivity in the social sciences is the frequent absence of a discussion of how academics’ aspirations to be reflexive in their research can be made accountable in academic practice. Based on the work of Alvin Gouldner I point to a different way of framing reflexivity in educational qualitative research that bridges the gap between theorising and practising reflexivity in the university and raises important questions about the implications of reflexivity or, of its lack. I thereby draw on extensive research on academic work and identity which I carried out in the UK and Chile based on qualitative interviews with academics. To conclude with, I suggest that discussions upon how to practise one’s aspirations to be a reflexive academic should depart from a collective analysis of the current structures of marketisation in higher education and how they may constrain reflexive academic practice in the university.

Qualitative research grounded in a social constructionist epistemology troubles the assumption, integral in positivist research, that a researcher can be neutral and apolitical. In fact, many scholars are drawn to constructionist epistemologies because they situate the research process as a site of ontological resistance and social change. This essay explores the politics of voice and representation in anti-oppressive qualitative research. Using an example from one author's research on stigma management among formerly incarcerated women, and the particularly pernicious stigma women faced if they had engaged in sex work, we detail the benefits and pitfalls of either re-presenting research participants in their exact words or changing participants' words, a process we refer to as re-languaging. Drawing upon philosophical and social scientific scholarship on the "crisis of representation" in qualitative research and recent scholarship and news articles about human sex trafficking, we underscore the powerful political effects of language. We argue that researchers' choices about language are neither inherently liberatory nor oppressive, but they are always political. We call for a more reflexive scholarly dialog on voice in qualitative social work research and press scholars to explicitly engage the question of whom and what we represent when we claim to represent marginalized others.

It has become increasingly fashionable for individual researchers to ‘personalise’ their accounts of fieldwork. But there has been little systematic attempt to reflect upon their experiences and emotions that are reported in any overarching collective or epistemological sense. (Coffey, 1999:1) There is a growing awareness that undertaking qualitative research on sensitive topics is an embodied experience and that researchers may be emotionally affected by the work that they do; however, empirical attention to the emotional nature of research is lacking. In this chapter we provide a number of different conceptualizations of emotions and examine their relevance for research work on sensitive topics. In order to understand the emotional nature of qualitative research on sensitive topics we also examine the sociological literature pertinent to emotion work and explore how the theories of emotional labour and emotion work can be applied to the experience of undertaking sensitive research. As we have outlined in earlier chapters, undertaking qualitative research on sensitive topics requires interaction with people in order to understand and document their experiences. To do this we need to acknowledge that ‘Qualitative social research is ‘people work’ and is therefore also ‘emotional work’ ’ (Lee-Treweek, 2000:128). Liz Stoler (2002:270) reminds us that ‘emotional reactions and personal needs do not just vanish because one has declared oneself a researcher’. Acknowledging and documenting the emotion work required from researchers to do this type of research may help us to understand some of the difficulties they face.

Qualitative researchers are compelled to use their personal judgements before, during and after interviews, particularly when their interview subjects are drawn from vulnerable groups. This paper discusses the dilemmas qualitative researchers encounter when collecting data that is ethically ‘sensitive’; and situates the discussion in the realm of the Australian Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) legislative requirement of ‘duty of care’ using the Rapidly Degenerative Neurological Diseases Pilot Program in Western Australia as the case example. The paper is focussed upon the practicalities and ethical concerns of the researchers conducting qualitative data collections. The discussion seeks to provide practical reflections on lessons learned and suggestions for self-care practice for researchers in the field and calls for policies that instruct and protect them.

This chapter begins with a brief overview of types of knowledge and how the middle ages culminated in the age of enlightenment and the rise of science that dominated Western thinking during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Who would have guessed that three centuries later science would still be competing, and in some cases losing, to uninformed opinions, conspiracy theories, demagoguery, nationalism, and “fake news” for the explanation of environmental, medical, and social events? The chapter emphasizes the need for qualitative social scientific research now more than ever. The chapter ends by challenging the reader to develop their own qualitative social scientific research project and presents thought-provoking questions for discussion.

Contents: Introduction Part I Perspectives on Social Work Research: Cutting edge issues in social work research Is social work distinctive? Ways of knowing in social work Rereading The Jack Roller: hidden histories in sociology and social work William J. Reid: an appreciation. Part II Evaluation: Social work and the human services Evidence from qualitative evaluation Seeing the trees for the wood: the politics of evaluating in practice Evaluation for a learning organization? Part III Qualitative Research: Qualitative social work: a room with a view Qualitative research and outcomes in health, social work and education Ethics and the practice of qualitative research Constructing causal accounts in social work The consequences of qualitative social work research Unbroken voices: children, young people and qualitative methods. Part IV Research, Theory and Practice: The quality of mercy: the management of quality in the personal social services Game plans, buzzes and sheer luck: doing well in social work Practitioner evaluation at work Evaluating in practice Culture and the indigenisation of quality in Third World social research. Part V Service Users and Research: Consumer opinion and social policy: a research review Consumer evaluations of the personal social services Engaging the user: participation, empowerment and the rhetoric of quality Just inquiry? Research and evaluation for service users Users and practitioners' research Indexes.

In this paper, Eugen Ehrlich’s notion of living law is presented as a concept of multi-normativity. The culturally pluralist character of his home province, Bukovina, led Ehrlich – rightly considered a pioneer not only of the sociology of law, but also of legal pluralism and qualitative social research – to empirically explore the legal customs of its different ethnic groups as actually practised. As Ehrlich stressed the role of private societal legal transactions, his place of activity became a metaphor for a law beyond the state. However, the textbook narrative that Austrian state law has been ›dead‹ in the easternmost crown land of the Habsburg Empire does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, as shown by an analysis of the monarchy’s legal statistics (that are hitherto practically unused for historical or sociological studies) and contemporary media accounts, the Bukovina witnessed an extraordinarily high litigation rate. Apart from precarious economic conditions, this was most likely an unintended consequence of civil procedural reforms. Given the Bukovina’s figurative meaning in current socio-legal discourses on law and globalisation, a proper understanding of this demand for state justice, as well as its coexistence with multiple societal normativities, is not only of historical interest.

Recent years have seen an explosion in social media in our everyday lives, and a corresponding increase in social media research in IS. As social media researchers, we are intrigued by the problem of virtuality and context in social media research, and how we might apply reflexive research principles to such settings. In social media, the absence of a setting's real physical boundaries (to a large extent) limits participants' ability to create a common experience at the present time and develop a history of shared experiences. As a result, we would contend that many social media researchers' interpretations of data in social media settings are often black‐boxed. In this paper, we argue that many of the challenges concerned with social media settings, by nature, are emergent and linked to their virtual and contextual features. We use the Klein and Myers (1999) framework for traditional interpretive field studies as a vehicle for unpacking these challenges. We contend that these challenges may remain unnoticed if researchers do not actively reflect upon their impact on the research process. In this paper, we present a framework for social media research, considering social media research as a reflexive space, building on the notion of three levels of reflexivity: theory, design and practice. Finally, we discuss some implications of reflexivity for qualitative social media research in IS.