**Transcript of Cyberseminar**

**Timely Topics of Interest**

**Qualitative Research Proposals: Common Pitfalls (and Solutions)**

**Presenter: George Sayre, PsyD**

**April 10, 2013**

**Qualitative Research Proposals: Common Pitfalls (and Solutions)**

**April 10, 2013**

*This is an unedited transcript of this session. As such, it may contain omissions or errors due to sound quality or misinterpretation. For clarification or verification of any points in the transcript, please refer to the audio version posted at http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/cyberseminars/catalog-archive.cfm or contact: george.sayre@va.gov*

Moderator:We are at the top of the hour, so at this time I would like to introduce our speaker. Today, presenting for us, we have Dr. Sayre, Dr. George Sayre. He is a health services researcher and qualitative resource coordinator at the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Excellence. He’s also an assistant professor of psychology at Seattle University in Seattle, Washington. We’re very thankful to have him joining us today and at this time I’d like to turn it over to you Dr. Sayre.

You are muted, but we do see your slides. We’ll just need you to go up into Power Point, or full screen mode. Go ahead and just tap the... yeah, we can hear you now. Just go ahead and click the slideshow icon in the bottom right hand corner.

George Sayre:Sorry about that. 

Moderator:Perfect. We’re set to go.

George Sayre:Alright. Good morning and thank you for tuning in. I want to mention that this is a live presentation in Seattle, so I have some of our folks here. If they ask questions, I will repeat the questions so you can hear them. I’ve asked them to be a reasonably well behaved bunch. We’ll see what happens. If you hear partying in the background, it’s not my fault.

Welcome. We’re going to be talking about some qualitative research proposals: common pitfalls and solutions. I wanted to start with a poll question, and ironically a quanitative poll. We don’t have time to take to collect qualitative  data on this, but I want to get a sense of people’s backgrounds. While you're filling that out, I’ll tell you a little background for this presentation. 

My role here at the Puget Sound HSR&D Center of Excellence is as a qualitative  resources coordinator. So, I get the chance to work on a lot of different research proposals, some purely qualitative and some mixed methods, and a wide variety of research which have good background qualitative methods of one sort or another, and some of them have actually absolutely none.  We’ve done a lot of proposals together. In doing so, we’re doing a little learning by trial and error on how this is working.

At the same time, you all are aware that there’s been an enormous increase in the amount of qualitative and mixed methods, research that we’ve done in the VA and in healthcare in general. Also, recently an increase in number of RFPs who specifically request mixed methods of qualitative methods to be included. Along with that, we’ve noticed an increase with the...there you go. We’ve got a fair number of people listening who have an exclusively quantitative background and mostly quantitative and that picture is pretty similar to what we have here at our center. 

As I was mentioning, along with the increase in the amount of qualitative research proposals that are being requested, there’s been an increase in the expertise of reviewers. I think a decade ago qualitative research proposals would be reviewed by folks who may not have any experience with that. At this point, we’re getting much more sophisticated feedback, which is both useful and painful sometimes. 

Moderator:Dr. Sayre, I apologize for interrupting. Can you actually speak up a little bit? The audio is a little bit quiet. 

George Sayre:Oh sure. Is that better?

Moderator:Much better. Thank you.

George Sayre:What I want to do today is we're going to go over some specific...common proposal issues. This list I’ve got is not mutually exclusive, so some of the things we talk about could fit into a number of categories. This is borrow heavily from a research project that the Robert Wood Johnson Organization did. They did a qualitative study where they looked at qualitative research article submissions and identified primary problems with that. So, I’m borrowing heavily from that. Also, look at the NIH proposal guidelines. NIH has a very nice list of their requirements when you're submitting qualitative proposals. Both of those resources, the links to those are included in the resource slide at the end of this presentation. In addition to that, I’m bringing in some of my own experience on writing proposals and the painful feedback we get, sometimes very useful also feedback we’re getting from reviewers. 

What we want to cover today is talk about issues in research focus, problems with terminology and jargon, sampling issues – which I know people have a lot of interest I, and some common method issues. We’re also going to touch on some of the issues around qualitative research evaluative criteria – which is important because there’s a variety of it, so how to approach that. 

I do have another poll question just to get started, help me out to get a picture of the audience. I’m curious what kinds of research we could do. We’re only allowed to put five up there, so I did the most common. I’m just curious as to what’s going on in the VA.

Moderator:Thank you very much. We do have people’s answers streaming in. We’ve had about half the audience answer thus far and we’ll give people a few more seconds to respond. The answer choices are content analysis, grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnographic, or other. It looks like we’ve had just about two third of the audience vote. We’ll give people five more seconds to get their responses in. Just simply click the square next to the answer that best aligns with your interest areas.  Okay, we’ve gotten all of our responses. I’m going to go ahead and close that out and share the results with you Dr. Sayre. 

George Sayre:Great. Thank you very much. 

Moderator:No problem. And, back to your slides. 

George Sayre:So let’s start with looking at research focus as an area where there’s some pitfalls. I want to go through some specifics around this. One of the first issues: aims that are not appropriate for qualitative methods. So, this is something I think we especially see in researchers who don’t have specific training in qualitative methods - so either overtly or kind of just bleeding in aims that are really not that appropriate. Every method has limitations and strengths – qualitative has its own limitations and strengths. So, language and aim set speak towards things such as generalized ability, establishing causality, testing, etc., are going to be problematic. Now, this also will sometimes comes up not a specific aim but in the overall purpose of the paper, etc. So, if you're going to be doing qualitative research, you have to make sure that the aims are appropriate for that.

Another issue is that the focus is not clear or specific. Because qualitative research is more inductive than deductive, what we frequently end up with is aims that are vague or focus that is not clear because it’s open research. We want to be open to capturing new information – things we haven’t identified. It’s common, sometimes that the themes can be extremely broad or the aims can be extremely broad. On the flip side, for qualitative research sometimes the focus could be way too clear – language that is hypothesis driven or very narrow doesn’t allow for the strength of qualitative research, which is to capture data that one doesn’t expect and have findings that you may not have hypothesized about, or you may not know how to conduct a survey research for, etc. If the language starts to get too specific and too narrow where you limit what your findings are going to be, they’re overly deductive, that’s going to be a problem in qualitative research.

Another issue is multiple aims that do not fit together either conceptually – so they’ll be broad aims and you'll have multiple aims that may not fit together, or what I’ve seen more often is chronologically. This applies in especially mixed methods research where a sequence and there’s sometimes the failure to take out what we want to do first – are we doing research in which the qualitative precedes the quantitative or vice versa, and what’s the logic model behind that? We looked at grants particularly that for time constraints, will collect qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously, at which point you may lose the iterative purpose of that. When you have multiple aims you have to make sure that not only is each one consistent with qualitative research methods, but is it also...do they link together in a way that is beneficial and it has an additive effect for that. 

So let’s talk about some of the solutions to this. One is it’s important to have language when develop your aims that are very appropriate for qualitative methods. Qualitative methods are about understanding, perhaps identifying themes and factors. It could be specific in such areas as barriers and etc. It has to be broad enough that you can capture things. In order to have qualitative aims and purposes that are narrow enough to clearly distinguish a specific phenomenon and therefore be sufficient focused, what we tend to do and what I recommend is focusing on specific experiences or settings. If you have very broad constructs such as... I’ll pick one that we’re just finishing writing – reproductive life planning. You don’t want the theme to be find out about reproductive life planning. That’s exceedingly large and broad. But, you can focus on a specific experience, such as what was the experience like talking to your doctor about whether or not you're planning on having a child. So, qualitative research does its best work when it’s focused on something, on a concrete experience, and so framing it that way, framing the research studies that way are useful. Same with settings, you can have a very concrete setting – what is the experience in the waiting room, what is the experience of this OR, etc.  

The broader the focus, where you're asking about concepts and such things as outcomes without giving specifics can make it very difficult to have enough focus. At the same time, you want to be open enough to allow for discovery. If you predefined exactly what people could talk about you're going to lose the strength of qualitative research, which is to discover things you weren’t expecting. Again, the best way to do this is to have very narrowly defined, very specific experiences of which you are having people describe and express, and at the same time, not having limited what they can talk about. 

Related to that is using a conceptual framework. Just because qualitative research is not deductive does not preclude using conceptual frameworks. However, it’s important that you use conceptual framework that’s consistent with qualitative inquiry so that you can have a framework which is not hypothesis driven, but does delineate what phenomenon you're looking at.  For example -  we’ve done some studies where we use “c” for constructs. What that does is identify specific domains of implementation. But, within that we can ask people to formulate questions and list the descriptions of their experience of leadership or flexibility that are rich enough for us to discover things. Some conceptual constructs are going to be so narrowly focused that they won’t lend themselves worthy of qualitative inquiry. 

Another thing I think is very important with use of conceptual frameworks, and this would apply to quantitative too but my familiarity is qualitative, is that you pick a conceptual framework that actually happens to for your research proposal. I think sometimes investigators have a habit of needing a conceptual framework, pulling one off the shelf, shoving it into their question, and it really didn’t inform why they asked that question. I have, and I’m sure many of you have had the experience of coming in, we’ve got a question that we’re interested in, the proposal is somewhat underway, at which point someone notices oh we need conceptual framework, and they pull something off the shelf and shove it in. I think that really is telling. I think it’s important to find a conceptual framework that fits with qualitative research, gives you direction, allows you to identify a specific experience or setting that you're looking for, and that can actually inform and drive your proposal.

Let’s talk some about terminology and jargon. This is especially an issue with qualitative research both because you'll have more reviewers who are not familiar with qualitative research and because – I have to confess – qualitative researchers are enamored with jargon. The terminology does not always...is not universal across methods. Different qualitative approaches, different authors use various terminology when sometimes talking about very similar things. So, that could be difficult. 

In qualitative research proposals it’s crucial to not use terminology that reviewers may be unfamiliar with. This doesn’t come up too often in quantitative, but especially this is not including unnecessary philosophical depth. You may have fascinations with epistomology and whether or not phenomenal logical research is postmodern or post positivist, you really don’t need to digress into that in your proposal. 

Using terminology from outside the study’s specific qualitative approach without explanation - one of the things I’m going to emphasize throughout this presentation is that there are a wide number of qualitative methods and each of them have their own language. If you're writing from a particular method, if you're doing grounded theory or if you're doing interpretive phenomenological logical analysis, you should use the language from within that approach unless there’s a reason to go outside of it, at which point you should explain. So, frequently proposals will be kind of patchwork quilts of various language using [inaud.] for one thing and then different levels of coding or they’ll mix the terminologies. So, I think it’s crucial when you work within framework to stick with that language. 

Now, there are times where you need to go outside of that. If - for example – you're doing phenomenological research and you're citing George as your primary resource, he does not speak about saturation directly or things like that. So you may need to bring in a concept to that, that you should note it so that people are aware that you are importing a concept to that particular model. 

And lastly, a problem is using technical terms in lieu of detailed descriptions of how the research will be done. So, if you use a term...if you say get thematic saturation – which is a fairly technical term – you may have people who are not familiar with that. That’s not [to be] as shorthand for telling us what you won’t do. What are the specifics that you'll do? So, let’s talk about some of the ways to address that. 

First off, I think it’s important to describe method specific terminology in a way that demonstrates the fit between the research approach and the question. So, it’s not simply...I would suggest not simply defining terms so that the person understands that you know what you are doing and they can understand the terminology. But always try to do that in a way which enhances why you were doing that particular research and why you've chosen that method. I think one of the most important overarching concepts in writing a proposal is if it’s a strong fit between the method you've chosen and the question at hand and the purpose of the study. I think it’s important to define these terms if...again, if you're describing saturation, explain what that is. If you are describing reflexivity because that’s part of the approach, explain not only the definition of that but do it in such a way that it enhances why this is a great method and the most appropriate method for this particular study and for this particular population and this phenomena and the questions at hand.

It’s important too, also when you provide definitions of unfamiliar terminology to give clear descriptions of what this means in terms of the study. In other words, what exactly you will be doing, instead of just theoretically explaining what reflexivity is. Explain how you will be doing that and how that enhances the study. Now, if you can’t give a provider a really clear example of what you'll be doing with this concept – how you will actually be putting it into practice – you may want to consider not using the concept. Or, you may need to consider developing a way to put it into practice. 

Lastly, be consistent within the specific qualitative methods. If you're deviating, explain that. That will be true both when it comes to using terminology and also if you have a methodological variance. If you're doing a particular method to describe a theory and you're doing something outside of what’s prescribed there - for example, you're using a pre-existing data set – I think it’s okay as long as you cite that you know that’s outside of the typical. So, you're doing modified grounded theory at that point. 

Let’s talk some about sampling because this is a real concern, especially for people who primarily have...their background is quantitative because we have this habit of using these tiny little sample sizes and these small numbers of people. Therefore, people get concerned because as a quantitative researcher you're taught that big is good. What I found is that as long as we approach this appropriately and support what we’re doing this is not an area that we’ve had any concerns. I also think that’s becoming less of an issue as we have really strong qualitative researchers doing reviews.

Some of the things we're seeing is not having a rationale for that sample size. An interesting study - and I didn’t put this as a resource, but if any of you folks are interested you can email me – somebody did a study on sample sizes in qualitative research and they are disproportionately denominators of ten...or five, 15, 20, 25. So, it seems that the picking nice and lovely numbers is more of a driver than the actual theoretical or data driven concern. That’s not really consistent with qualitative methods and theories. 

One is, you have to provide a rationale. Secondly is, most qualitative approaches – not all, but most – take an iterative approach to sampling and to participation selection and data analysis. Frequently, people do not include that. They approach it with kind of a set size.

Lack of diversity, which is when you're doing a study in the sampling technique do you have some way of guaranteeing that you're going to have a broad enough community? Conversely, in qualitative research we can sometimes want very homogeneous groups. We can want participants that have very similar shared experience. If your research aims are focused very narrowly on a very specific experience it has to be constructed such that you'll have people that have had that experience and you don’t capture too broad of a participant role. 

Failure to consider participant bias – some of the ways in which we capture and recruit participants, specifically said snowball sampling, they’re very useful. They have some real strengths to them, but you have to note that there’s going to be a bias there. If I have physicians referring patients to me, they’re probably going to refer ones who like them and who have done well. So, we want to make sure people understand and that we're aware of whatever bias in our participant selection we have. 

Lastly  is naïve participation expectations or assumptions – can you really get these people? With some qualitative research this is fine. Frequently people are underestimating how hard it is to even get small samples. So, you'll go wow, ten people. That’s a breeze. It depends. If you're working with...we did a proposal and isolated rural veterans were our target audience – our participants we were trying to get. There’s a reason they are isolated rural veterans. It may be because they don’t want to talk to us. And so, some of the feedback we got is that’s extremely hard group of people to try to find, even if what you want is to find 12 in the state. So, those are some things to be concerned with.

Let’s talk about some of the ways to do strong sample...proposals regarding sampling. One is, even though we cannot use...we don’t use, in most qualitative research, predetermined sample sizes and you can’t support it with any mathematical power calculus. There are ways to have really strong proposals. One is to site recommendations within the specific qualitative approach. So, as I mentioned before, I’m a big believer on working within qualitative specific traditions and so if you're doing an interpretive phenomenal logical analysis, Jonathan Smith recommends specific numbers. You can site that. This is what he says works well for that particular method.

Also, it’s useful to be consistent within a range of published studies with similar focused methods and populations. I like to include in proposals that other people doing pilot studies, formative research within a similar population using this particular approach have used this particular number. I sometimes site a range – you know we’ve identified seven studies using this method with a similar population looking for a similar kind of study and the range was between X and X. You're giving some rationale for why you think you're going to be fine. Remember, if you're not using a predetermined sample size you're putting a minimum you plan on catching and a range. So you have to...if you can cite other research that’s done that way and you're well within that range I think that has strong support. 

Lastly is: Are you clear about the method which you will determine saturation? Frequently when you're determining sample sizes by saturation the proposals say we’ll do this until we reach saturation, end of sentence, and exactly how that’s going to happen. Okay, who will determine that, how much further will you go to assure that, will that be done by group consensus, will that be a research team that’s making the decision, etc. So, explain not only for each saturation, but how will that be determined. 

Secondly, it’s important to make the fit between the participant selection and the aims very exclusive - why are you talking to these people in this way? We use snowball sampling for some implementation science research we’re doing. We could explain that snowball sampling, there’s some bias there. But, given the nature of implementation specialty care initiatives and the way that information is supposed to be disseminated we’re looking about issues like force multiplication. We can make an argument that snowball sampling is a really wise way to do that because we’re following the trail of the implementation in any way. 

Provide specific details regarding how you'll do inner group recruitment and data collection methods. This, by the way down the road – if you get your proposal funded – will be part of...clear details on how you do iterative data analysis. In other words, you want to make sure that you don’t just say we’re going to do iterative interviewing, but here’s how it will be done. We’ll look at first interviews, revisions will be made regarding questions that work, the team will decide this, we’ll use a team consensus process, etc. 

Lastly, it’s important to up front address recruitment and data collection challenges. My bias on this is we don’t want to shy away from hard to read populations. This is particularly important here in the VA where we have...when we’re working with veterans a lot of the people who most need to have their voice heard are hard to reach – rural, isolated, homeless, etc. So, it’s important that we don’t not go to those folks and listen to them. But, at the same time, if we are working with hard to reach folks it’s important to make that known in the proposal that you understand it. That can also be justification why you may have really small sample sizes. You're expecting a small group because they’re hard to reach and you can justify that given the importance of that population and the role they have as patients in the VA is worth going after. So, I think as long as you make that known, I think you get pretty good feedback. 

Let’s talk about some method issues and pitfalls. One is poor fit. I mentioned this before, but having qualitative approaches that are not most appropriate. As we’re getting more and more sophisticated reviewers you're more likely to have people who know a number of qualitative methods. If you are doing a study that should lend itself to another kind, why are you doing this particular one? A related issue is the qualitative approach drives rather than serves the study. We pick methods because they help us answer the questions we want. We don’t want to pick questions because it’s the method we happen to have. Frankly, I would say – speaking from myself as a member of this tribe – qualitative researchers in some way could be more problematic than most. We often are wedded to particular methods. You'll have people who all they do is...they see themselves as grounded theorists or phenomenal logical researchers. If everything...if the only tool you have is a hammer, then you see a lot of nails. I think that’s an issue.

Methods are not consistent with a specific qualitative approach and/or variation is not noted and justified. This is somewhat what I mentioned in jargon before. When you're working with a particular qualitative method, I think it’s important to follow that method. Or, if you're going to deviate, explain why. I think it looks fairly bad to reviewers if you site that you're doing grounded theory - which is...there’s some literature on the fact that this may be the most bacterized of all theories. Someone says I’m doing grounded theory and then you look at the method and it’s not. I think you need to do that again. I think you can note if there’s variation. We had a funded and published study on PTSD and relationships. We were using – for a very good reason – pre-existing data set. That is not what you do in grounded theory, but we made a note of that. And, because we have such a massive data set, we can justify why it will work.

Lack of clarity regarding data collection and/or analysis methods: Do you really explain what you're doing? A good example of this is interview guides...including interview guides. Even though it’s iterative, you're going to be changing it. You're going to explain this is what we start with, here are specific questions we’ll be asking so they get an idea of how you're doing that, how open they are etc., and what are your iterative interview guide...what’s the process for changing that? So, not just we’ll change it as we go – which makes people queasy – but you'll explain we’ll do the first interview or the second interview, at which time we’ll review from these particular points – something like whether the questions are working, do they elicited useful information, was the order useful, are participants understanding it? Then, the qualitative research team will have a discussion regarding which questions we want to highlight, which ones we want to drop, and has new information emerged that warrants development of new questions? You want to spell out exactly how that’s going to happen.

The last one is an issue which I think is common and also, for me, fascinating because it’s an area I’m trying to learn more about and develop better skills at. In mixed method studies frequently there’s no specifics of how the mixing will happen. So you're doing qualitative research and quantitative research and one will inform the other. How are you going to do that? Again, using proper terminology: Are you triangulating, are you merging, etc.? There’s good literature on how these approaches are done. Some feedback I’ve gotten and I’ve heard from many other folks is that you'll explain the qualitative method and you'll explain the quantitative method and then you'll explain that somehow it gets mixed. I think that’s very weak. At least, I was told mine was weak on that one. 

Let’s talk about some solutions to the methods issues. One is, I think it’s important to understand a variety of qualitative methods. I think if you're going to be doing a lot of qualitative research I think it’s a big dangerous to only know one method because you'll be stuck with that. Apart from that is I think you need to be willing to change methods while developing the research proposal. The method is not supposed to drive the proposal of the study. The question and concern is if you're part way through a proposal, as you all know, that frequently during proposals the questions get tweaked, you get feedback, and you realize we need to make this a little more narrow or specific. At some point you may have changed your aim such that the method you originally chose is no longer appropriate. I think you have to be willing to do that, but you can’t do if you only have one tool.

An example of that, we were just working on, I mentioned, reproductive life planning and we started with a very broad question about reproductive life planning. That question really lent itself to doing interpretive phenomenal logical analysis. We got some feedback from other reviewers which suggest that it be more specific because we got into the specifics. At some point, IPA was not a really good method. So, we switched to inductive and deductive contents analysis because that fits better. So, if you’re going to make sure that the methods fit the question you've got to be willing to switch it around a little bit. 

Describe specific guidelines for data collection: This is pretty similar to what I was saying before. You want to mention the scope, given an initial interview guide as an appendix so people can see it, what are your protocols for open interviewing – what I mean by that is when we say we’re doing semi structured or open interviewing, that could be scary to reviewers because they don’t know where you're going to go. It’s also scary to IRP folks. So, even though we’re doing open interviewing, you want to describe what are the protocols. I personally like to include specific prompts we’re going to be using, the specific follow-up questions. I like to explain how we're going to stay close to the person’s discussion so we’re not leading the questions and we give descriptions. The reviewer who is reading this can picture you doing this interview and has a good sense and they know what will happen down the road. One of the scary things for non-qualitative research is an iterative research process – where it’s going to change over time. They’re used to seeing surveys that what they see is what’s going to happen in six months. 

Lastly, some specific data analysis steps: What does that actually look like? This is very important for folks that are not familiar with qualitative research or reviewers who are looking at that...can they picture what you're going to be doing? If you're doing deductive content analysis, what are you’re a priori codes? You've got to define what that means. How will things be [inaud.] if you're doing iterated reliability, how does that happen? If you're doing another format, make sure you use the language from within that method to explain briefly how you're going to do this data analysis. 

One of the things I think has helped is cite standard and appropriate sources that reflect the specific method. So again, we have a large variety of qualitative methods and all of which have standard sources. I think it’s important to as much as possible, stick with those. If you're doing grounded theory, you could stress Horobin or you could do [inaud.]  stress and make sure you're within that and explain wherever you deviate. For mixed methods it’s very important to cite exactly how we will be doing that. There’s some good resources on that, Peebles is one,  [inaud.] is a nice book on mixed methods. You can cite here with what we will do with the methods, the findings of the two, and how they will inform each other. 

I do want to talk a little about qualitative research criteria. One of the challenges in qualitative research criteria is that there is no common consensus on that. Everyone who has come up with qualitative methods seems to have spun out their own language and concepts and lingo on what makes for good qualitative research. At the same time, they’re destined to be some overlap. And so most are going to, in some ways, address the notion of fit between the method and the question, trustworthiness – can we look at what you did and know it’s grounded or it’s coming from the participants credibility, can we understand your method? So, we can look at your research and understand how you did that and followed reasonable consistent accepted ways of approaching that. I think confirmability, is our weighted [inaud.] original data, the quotes, etc. Are you going to be able to see how you made your...

Assumptions and transferability: Will the findings be able to be used by people to see how well it applies to them. So, there’s got to be something along those lines. I think proposals should make sure you address method specific criteria. Almost all method theorists have discussed what makes a study, within their approach, good or bad. And, I think it’s crucial to use that. If there aren't any, you can revert to some common criteria. 

I also think lots of this is funder specific criteria. As I mentioned, NIH has very clear guidelines on what they want of qualitative research. If you're submitting to them, look and see what they want so you can express that you're going to be fitting their criteria and they can look and say yes, this is what we look for in qualitative proposals. 

One last poll question: What I’m curious about is for most of you who submitted, what has been the most common problems you've got back within the categories we’ve been talking about today?

Moderator:Thank you Dr. Sayre. It looks like the question has been launched and we’ve had about 15% of our audience vote. We’ll give people some  more time to get their responses in. The question is: What has been the most weakness cited in your qualitative research proposal reviews? The answer options are: Research focus, terminology and jargon, sampling issues, common methods issues, or lack of evaluative criteria. The answers have stopped streaming in. So, at this point I’m going to close the poll and share the results. I can talk through them real quick. It looks like we have 10% saying research focus, 7% terminology and jargon, 30% sampling issues, 33% common methods issues, and 20% lack of evaluative criteria. So thank you for your attendees for responding and I’ll turn it back over to you now. 

George Sayre:I want to cover one...I missed something. I also want to apologize for the typo there. I forgot the word common. It’s common ... [inaud.] I do want to go back to this last thing on qualitative research criteria that I forgot to mention. Not only, I think, in your proposal should you be aware of this, but it is important to cite them and also discuss how you're going to address them. Audit trails are crucial in qualitative research and exactly how would that be done. How will you approach qualitative assurance of your study? Will there be someone – and there should be someone – who is auditing the interviews to make sure they fit with the protocol – the data is clean, the data is good – and spelling that out? How will you make sure these things happen? I mentioned the evaluative criteria of your specific method that you're using and then address each one of them, what are we going to do about this? I’d like to propose to identify who is going to be in charge of checking to make sure that interviews are done properly, getting feedback, [inaud.] interviews, etc. 

On that note, I think we’ve covered everything I was planning on going over. So, we’re going to open it up for questions. As I mentioned before, there’s two more slides after this which are a very brief list of resources, but the do include the Robert Wood Johnson resource, which is a wonderful set of pages with a tremendous amount of information and very broad on qualitative research in healthcare, and also the NIH resources.

So, at this point we can open up for questions. 

Moderator:Thank you so much. Before we get started can I ask you to click “show my screen” again and we’ll just put up the resource slide? Okay, thank you Dr. Sayre for that great presentation. Without further ado we will get right onto the questions and answers. 

The first question that came in: Would conducting a pilot study preclude the need for an iterative approach?

George Sayre:Not necessarily. It would depend first off on the method you are using. If you're using - for example – grounded theory, grounded theory...having an iterative approach is essential to that method. So, I don't think you want to focus on that as a pilot study. The second thing is, it depends on question and the aims you're trying to get. Certainly with any pilot study you would sometimes want an iterative approach, especially if you're following people over time, maybe doing pre and post. So, a good example of that is one we're actually working on now with mindfulness stress reduction. We did initial interviews and we’re going to do - depending on what people talk about as barriers and participants describe – we will refine the follow-up interviews based on that. So, we’re going to use an iterative approach. 

I think the two questions are: What is the purpose of doing the qualitative research and what is the method you're using? That should guide whether you're using an iterative sampling and iterative data collection approach.

Moderator:Thank you for that answer. The next question: What would be a great guide for a new qualitative researcher?

George Sayre:Well, Creswell is by far the most used. That’s always a good start. Denson and Lincoln, *The Stage Handbook of Qualitative Researches* is broader. It’ll give you some more background and things like that. It’s more of a text. That’s a nice one to use. So, both of those and again Creswell is probably the most cited I would say.

The other thing I would mention on that is within specific disciplines there’s going to be...so nursing has some really nice ones. Psychology, Camic’s and Johnanthan Smith’s are really good tests. If you're doing a study within a particular discipline I think that’s useful. There’s some on health research. Lastly, there’s some specific to topics. For example – there’s an old text that I like – since I’m a family psychologist and do family research on qualitative methods in family psychological by Yogan, et al, so, start with someone like Creswell and then lastly you would want to make sure – depending on the method that you're using – to go to the original source of that. If you're doing phenomenological research a la George E, you'll want to use that text. 

Moderator:Great, thank you for that reply. The next question: Do you feel that quantitative methods can be enriched by qualitative methods especially when conducting research about rural, female and homeless veterans?

George Sayre:Absolutely. I’m not sure I’d  be able to say much specifically about rural, female, and homeless veterans. The reason being I think in some ways there the challenge is quantitative. They’re a hard sample to get. You may be working with small sample sizes. I think in some ways the challenge there is quantitative. Certainly what the whole purpose of mixed methods is that one of the approaches – the qualitative or quantitative – can enhance the other. The question for doing mixed methods is a logical one. How do you want the relationship between the two? 

A classic example is using qualitative to illuminate the findings that are quantitative. So, if you have a large sample size and you do survey research and you find that with rural veterans there’s a number give a particular reason for not seeking treatment or etc., then you're going to get a pretty course finding that you just know that “X” number of veterans presented endorsed particular reason. Then you can use the qualitative to maybe flush out what might that mean. So, if numbers say they don’t like authority figures in their life, you might have several varieties of stories about that. So there, you're using qualitative to kind of illuminate this number so you have a number or percentage. We’ve done that with barriers and facilitators where we know that “X” number of people present a time as a barrier to doing something. But, what are the specifics of that? 

So that’s one direction. It works the other way too. Qualitative methods can help you develop quantitative methods. So you identify factors in your interviews that you can then use to develop survey instruments, etc. I do think a really good text on that, if you want to look at how these inform each other and what the various logic levels are, is Teddlie and Tashakkori’s *Foundations of Mixed Methods Research.*It’s pretty extensive on the various ways that these two can go together. 

Moderator:Great. Thank you for that response. The next question we have: There may be problems with page limits given the detail you advise. Do you have any comments or advice?

George Sayre:Simply be succinct. So, when I talked about defining terms, they can be done pretty quickly. For example – saturation, we use the standard kind of parenthetical sentence which is the point at which no new findings relevant to things are identified in interviews. So, I think it’s important not to go on but make sure you have some sense of it. There’s always a balance there. The danger is when you have no explanation. You don’t need a paragraph to explain saturation, but you do need some census that someone can look at. Beyond that, I think using a reference too. If you mention you're going to collect...do interviews until thematic saturation is reached you use one sentence to explain what that is and then you provide a reference that they can go look at what that is – not that I think reviewers ever look at references, I’m not sure. I tend not to, but I think just being succinct can get you around that.

Moderator:Thank you for that reply. Maybe this is something that I can send to the question asker? As a picture is worth a thousand words, an example may be worth at least as much. Do you have any good examples of proposals that hit almost all your points well that you're willing to share? If so, I can send it to that person.

George Sayre:Yeah, I can do something like that. The other thing I mentioned, for everyone else’s...published research is usually good examples. The points they hit are...in their method sections and their background sections are things you want to put in. I think I got some. I have to confess, I probably don’t have one that hits every point I think I should hit, but I certainly have some...you know, we have the ones that have been funded. If you send me that, I can do that. 

Moderator:Okay, great. I’ll be sure to get that email address out to you.

George Sayre:The next question: Reviews are okay, but the problem is IRB unpractical requirements around sampling issues. For instance, a contact with little/no information is an opportunity to opt out before an actual contact, which adds burden to potential participants or at least increases the number of email communications. Have you found a streamline protocol to identify samples among facilities employees?

George Sayre:Well, let me break that in half because the employees are going to be a separate issue and there’s some nice things about that. As far as focusing specifically on consent, because you do have to get consent before you contact someone for an interview, if it’s a patient. That can be tricky. What we have found is that if you can identify sources of existing contact already – so if you're interviewing patients who are undergoing a particular treatment, if you can capture the consent during the treatment time. So, if they’re participating in a group or an intervention or if you're trying to get people who are having reproductive life planning discussions with their doctor, that already existing point of contact is a good time to try to capture consent – if that’s possible. That’s not always possible. If you're trying to contact homeless vets or whatever and you do have to find some way of getting the consent and getting it back prior to contact. 

You mentioned email. There’s some limitations around email. There are populations that’s not going to be useful for – the older, the veteran, the more isolated, and again homeless etc. is not going to have email. But I think the first thing is to try to brainstorm with your investigators and your collaborators and your clinical contacts. Is there some place we can do this where they’re going to be in already? It’s a very sensitive issue in the VA because one of our main agenda is to cut down on their travel time and their contact time. It’s already onerous that they have to travel to medical centers and etc., so trying to double up on that.

Another comment, you mentioned specifically for facilities employees. Well, [Audio cuts out from 00:55:05 to 00:55:16] check that out because we sometimes can do...if it’s an employee and you're not doing patient data it might be able to go under quality improvement, and therefore doesn’t need IRB. So, it will need union approval but it won’t need IRB approval. So that’s something...and you always run into the issue about to what degree, especially with providers. Are we just pummeling them with data collection? We’re dealing with that. We're doing a series of specialty care initiatives right now. We’re sending out lots of surveys and lots of contacts. We try to be very judicious because at some point we’re going to get less return because they’re going to be tired of talking to us. 

So those are two things. Look to see if you can run it through QI if it’s about employees. And the other is to try to identify existing points of contact. 

Moderator:Great, thank you. The next question: Poll question number two asked about different qualitative method approaches. Was that list exhaustive or is there a reference you recommend for me to consider all common approaches?

George Sayre:It’s not at all exhaustive, although I would say those are probably...you can look up some research to see if this is the case, but those are probably the main ones. And, as you can see by the response, they’re familiar enough that these are things a fair number of people are using. But, it’s not at all exhaustive. I saw a list one time that had 47 or something like that. So there’s an awful lot. 

Also, within disciplines – say phenomenology – there’s a number of different approaches etc. Content analysis has a variety. You'll sometimes have methods that are awfully similar – content analysis and thematic analysis have just tremendous amount of overlap. Some people would argue they’re synonymous. As far as...I don't have a particular reference for the list, but the standard texts I mentioned, again Denzin and Lincoln’s *Qualitative Research Handbook* from SAGE, and of course Creswell and some of the other ones. They’ll discuss a variety of methods. 

Moderator:Great, thank you. The next question: Please explain what you mean by iterative sampling. Somebody asked also that you define iterative. 

George Sayre:Iterative means that there’s simultaneous data collection and data analysis such that ongoing data analysis can inform how you're doing the collection. In other words, as we get new data in we can revise our collection method. So, we may have started out with a particular question or interview guide and as we notice that some of the questions aren’t eliciting responses we can drop that. We also might have new themes submerge that we haven’t expected that warrant specific questions and focus. So, the purpose of iterative process is that the very way you're doing research is grounded into the findings as opposed to pre-supposed.

Now, for sampling what that means is that the particular sample you may want to pursue can be revised as you go along. So, even though we’re focusing on a particular sample with particular experiences, we might find that as we collect data the particular people have had a unique part of the experience. An example of this is snowball sampling. You don’t know who you’re going to end up with but during the process if someone mentions particular key components or something that resonates with themes that you're looking for, we might ask the participant can you tell us someone else who is...can you tell us about a colleague or can you tell us...have an acquaintance who also had this experience that we can talk to? So, you might have started out with a generic population, which isn’t super well defined and you didn’t do purpose sampling, maybe you did random sampling, and you notice that there’s a gender difference in your participants as far as the kind of responses. At which point, you might decide to do more purpose of sampling and say we’re going to have to make sure we have representatives from both genders, etc. Or you might have a cohort difference that you find as you’re doing the research that younger vets or the older vets or vets from different eras have very different experiences, at which point you want to bring in more purpose sampling approach and say let’s make sure we’re capturing veterans from both of these populations. 

Moderator:Great. The next question – this is kind of a broad one: Can you please identify some of the successful qualitative researchers within the VA system?

George Sayre:You know, there’s a lot...and so I can’t. But, I can tell you...I will name three people. The reason I’ll pick these three is because these folks have leadership positions in qualitative research and forgive me if anyone is listening to this and I’m missing you. But, Jane Foreman in Ann Arbor, Susan Zickman  in Pittsburg, Sarah Ono in Iowa City, those are all settings that have formal qualitative cores and those are the directors of those. And so, those are people who actually have formal leadership in qualitative research at their center. I do that...I’m the qualitative research coordinator for Seattle. So, those are people I can point to who have qualitative leadership positions in the VA. 

Beyond that, you know there are just dozens and dozens of really quite good qualitative research floating around the VA. I have a hard time beginning to name them all. And, I don't know everyone who is doing that. 

Moderator:Thank you very much. In your opinion, what are some of the most promising areas for qualitative research to address?

George Sayre:That is very broad. I have no idea, except sort of areas I want to say. The greatest strength of qualitative researching has been where we have enormous gaps. The places in which we don’t even know what questions to ask, that’s one of the purposes of qualitative research. When we have new areas that are ill defined or we have unusual findings where we get odd responses or we’re looking at populations that there’s almost no literature. So, when you do your background check in that area or you're doing your literature review and you find there’s really almost nothing to define why this population is having this experience that we don’t know about. I think qualitative research is very useful for that. Or, in places where we’re finding the model is not adequate, the theories we have are insufficient to give us direction. 

I think the less we know about a particular area, the more qualitative research is really, really quite useful. As far as what the specifics are, I can only speak to some of my interests. Areas where we are looking at some caregiver research issues, where we really don’t fully understand the impact on outside people. We just did an article on and finished the study on the impact of PTSD and couples relationships. We knew there’s a tremendous amount of quantitative research that shows high rates of interpersonal violence among PTSD couples. But, there was really very little model to explain how that happened.

Rural veterans are under served and under known – not well understood. And, homeless veterans are outside of the loop a lot. So, those are areas we really lack a lot of conceptual models. I think there’s a lot more. I’d throw the last one in. We don’t have enough literature on female veterans because female veterans historically have been underserved and not in the consciousness of the VA, and so reproductive health and things like that where we are just needing to understand more.

Moderator:Thank you. Can you tell us which traditions you typically work in seeing you have come from a primarily grounded theory prospective? For example – saturation, snowball sampling, etc. 

George Sayre:Again, actually my background is phenomenal logical research. If I had a vicinity, that’s what I really enjoy doing. However, as I mentioned, I like to be eclectic. My work here is to work with a variety of investigators and their projects. I like to do whatever serves best that question. Within the VA, I’ve done phenomenal logical research. I’ve done grounded theory because we were trying to develop the PTSD model I just talked about because we’re trying to develop a conceptual framework. Grounded theory lent itself to that. And, I do a fair amount of inductive and deductive content analysis. I’m doing a project with thematic analysis. I really endeavor to be fairly eclectic in that I really stress the fit between the method and the question. 

There’s some research that I’d like to do but I haven’t had the opportunity to...ethnography fascinates me, but I have not been able to do any. I keep my ears out for someone doing some who I can tag along with and learn how to do that because I think there’s a real place for that. 

Moderator:Thank you. Keeping in mind time and money constraints, in mixed methods do you suggest qualitative before quantitative or vice versa?

George Sayre:It depends on the question. This touches on the question that someone asked earlier. There’s very good logic models for both of those. We use...actually there’s three approaches. You can do qualitative first – that’s most frequently done when we’re developing quantitative methods. In other words, a kind of classic example is we do some preliminary interviews in order to identify factors which we want to do survey research with. Or we do qualitative research in order to develop an intervention that we're going to pilot study. But frequently it goes the other way around, that you have a large set of quantitative findings, maybe even an existing data set, that you want to then understand better. We know that this category of people drop out, but we don’t know why or we don’t know what other varieties of dropping out of treatment are. 

Lastly, sometimes we do simultaneous data collection where you can be doing interviewing...you may have a survey that’s already underway or you're going to start a survey...especially if maybe it’s a standard one that we use – some of the employee surveys we have – and we’re going to collect qualitative data alongside and then merge them at the end where we use the two to inform each other. I don’t think you should have a set pattern in mind that really is driven by the question. Again, I think Teddlie’s text on *Foundations of Mixed Methods Research* does a really nice job laying out the whole variety of the patterns with which people approach mixed methods.

Moderator:Perfect, thank you. Next question: It seems that chart review is a common mixed method approach. That is subject to many of these pitfalls....let me start over with that one. It seems that chart review is a common mixed method approach that is subject to many of these pitfalls. Are there guidelines and strong references for proposing and conducting this approach appropriately?

George Sayre:Yeah, there...I don't know off the top of my head on that one. As far as specific to chart review, I’m not sure. What I can say is that a guideline is always to look at what has been published in the literature. It might be tricky because in the title they’re probably not going to mention chart review. That’s a data source. I do think, given the kinds of chart, you'd have to ask...depending on the kind of chart entry, how rich the data is. So, a real driver of method would be are we getting...is there a lot of data there or is it what we call thin data – a person came at gastrointestinal distress, recommended this? Okay so, charts, usually there’s limit to how rich and thick the data is. 

That being said, you’re going to still choose some particular qualitative approach to that, whether it’s content analysis – obviously lent itself to that – or some other. I don’t think chart review is a particular one. But, I do think you're going to use one of the existing methods on that. Then you would follow that protocol. But, to be honest, I’m not exactly sure. Great question. I’m going to go find out. 

Moderator:Great. I have not submitted any proposals, but I have some clinical questions that could be studied. Where in the VA can a clinician get support for developing a research proposal?

George Sayre:That is totally beyond me. Except, I can say there are probably some...I’m assuming that the person asking this is not in a clinical research position. So, we have a fair amount of clinical researchers who are aware of that and they are already pursuing funding. But, beyond that I’m not sure. I’m assuming...well, I’m just going to throw something out, but I’m assuming it’s a matter of talking to your supervisor, whether you get time for that, or would you be doing that above and beyond your time. I don't think there’s any rules that for many of the funding opportunities and RFPs that you’re required to be in a research position. The main thing is time. 

I think my first suggestion, and this is a little outside of my area, but it would be talk to your supervisor in your setting to see would they be supportive of you taking the time to do that.

Moderator:Thank you for that reply. Can you provide us all a good reference that describes a qualitative survey method – not a book, but one we could get via pub med for example?

George Sayre:The only one I can think of actually, and it won’t be focused specifically on survey methods – I use it focused on interviews – but there are some. If you look...I put on in the references about writing proposals. So, that would be one to start. I’m not sure, off the top of my head, whether there’s a good article on constructing open-ended and qualitative surveys. Sorry about that. 

Moderator:No problem. Do you have any thoughts about literature on data analysis? It seems this is a gap in the literature.

George Sayre:I’m not sure what’s meant there. That question, they would need to clarify a little more. If it’s about approaches to data analysis, I think there’s a fair amount of literature. Again, all the ones...starting with the broad texts like Creswell and etc., but then there’s...within each method there’s fairly extensive descriptions on how data analysis is done. Which, leads me to think I don't...I’m not sure what the clarity of the question is though. 

[Talking over each other.]

George Sayre:They can send me a clearer question.

Moderator:Okay, sounds good. That person, I’ll have them contact you offline. So the next question: Do you include coreq with a proposal?

George Sayre:I’m not sure what they’re referring to...coreq? Boy as a faculty person, I think of requirements. Again, that would be one I’d like to have clarified.  That’s not...

[Talking over each other.]

Moderator:Well, everybody has your contact information. So, they’re more than welcome to contact you offline. Next question: Do you have any advice for R&D/IRB reviewers when assessing a qualitative study proposals for protection of human subjects?

George Sayre:Well, I think the primary concern that’s particular to qualitative is how’s the consent being done. There are some particular issues on recording and stuff. So, you want to make sure that’s extremely well spelled out. As someone asked in an earlier question, that can be challenging with certain populations. You want to make sure we have a separate consent, etc. The other one is because we frequently use iterative data collection, you want to be really clear that you know not exactly what questions are going to be asked in interviews down the road, but how are they going to get to it. There’s a procedure for that, that there’s...you can have a picture of, as the questions change, during an interview, how’s that going to happen. I would say that’s also true with open-ended prompts. How are people going to ask those? You don’t get to know ahead of time what people are going to talk about, but you want to limit the scope. 

One of the specific risks of qualitative research as far as participants go is the scope of the questions. So, are you going to be getting into questions that are outside of the aims for the research, that are beyond what IRB is agreeing to have studied? So, you want to know there are good safeguards in place that the interview is open, but it’s going to stay within the scope. 

I also think it’s important to make sure that every interview guide is clear enough that you see their introductory script so things like...you know the participant was told you can stop at any time, etc. We use kind of a standard...we have some boiler plate scripts we use in the beginning that we make sure we cover consent really well. I think those are the pretty basic ones on having good confidence form reading this proposal that the research is open, but it’s not going to wonder away.

Moderator:And, along the same lines, do you have a favorite article or chapter that addresses this same concern?

George Sayre:No. I think...I don’t. Other than I think each of these standard texts we talked about addresses this to some degree. But, from an IRB perspective or a human subjects perspective, I don’t. 

Moderator:No problem. Somebody asked for a reference list for the classic citations you mentioned. I believe those are included in those last few slides, correct?

George Sayre:Yes.

Moderator:Okay. And, can you say that data saturation will be determined when the answers are repetitive? 

George Sayre:I think you can. I think that’s a blunt way to say it. Keep in mind, usually when talking about saturation we’re usually talking about from a grounded theory prospective, it’s thematic saturation. It’s not just that the answer is repetitive, that you are not finding new data pertinent to the themes that have emerged. So, as you are doing research in an iterative way, frequently it’s moving from very inductive - meaning we don’t know what we’re looking for, to as themes emerge and you start to have an idea, this is what we’re hearing. These are the key factors. These are the key barriers and facilitators. These are the key components of the model we’re constructing. At some point you start to see that no new information is being added in that area. 

I think that’s a...you need to focus on what are you heading towards saturation for? Is it themes? Is it findings relevant to your aims, etc.?

Moderator:Thank you. Can you...along with the questions pertaining to iterative methods, what suggestions do you have for appropriately and adequately describing iterative methods in a proposal?

George Sayre:I think being concrete – how is that going to happen? So, do you say we’ll conduct two interviews...or one interview etc. at which point a team...you know, if you have a research team, which qualitative research I’m a huge fan of using whole teams. It will be assessed. It will identify which questions need to be changed verses...or excuse me...because they’re eliciting information or failing to elicit information. As new themes arise, we will revise the guide. Talking about who is doing that, what are the criteria for that, and again very succinctly because we have some time limits. But, what you don’t want to do is simply say we’re taking a [inaud.]. So, a few sentences to flush out what exactly that looks like.

I like to make it clear that we’ll be doing that both for that effectiveness of the questions and also to generate new questions as themes emerge. These decisions will be made by the research team at monthly meetings or something like that. 

Moderator:Thank you. This next question is quite a loaded question. Please address the different approaches to data analysis for the various methods – content analysis, phenomenology, ethnography, GT...

George Sayre:I cannot begin to do that here. Not to be abrupt, but I can’t do that. That’s an enormous question. We have a course on this. What I can do is I think you're going to have to get into some of the readings. I think Jonathon Smith’s text is a really nice one that kind of compares different methods and talks about the basic approaches. I tend to like his texts as a nice one from a psych perspective on comparison. There’ll be one in different prospective. That would take longer than our original webinar.

Moderator:Not a problem. They did have a second part to the question which might be easier: Ethnography seems like a compilation of methods. So, would the analysis also be a compilation of techniques?

George Sayre:I think the premise is out there in the question. Ethnography is a particular approach that ...with very clear, distinct methods. What characterized ethnography is that the purpose of the study is...or two things. One is that the focus of the study is a group and the cultural dynamics within a group. That could be a specific culture or subculture as you see in anthropology where ethnography came from – Native Americans, etc. Also, some cultures are functional groups. So, you could do ethnography with homelessness to see how they as a group, as a community, function. ER has a culture. Physicians are a subculture. 

So, the first distinguishing factor about ethnography is that it’s focused on communities and groups of people, not as just simple individuals. But, what are the languages, the habits, the cultural norms, values, etc. that identify that? The second thing that’s important about ethnography is that it relies on emersion. So, to do ethnographic research, the researcher has to immerse themselves within that population. So, it’s usually focused not just simply on interviews, but field research – hanging out at the ER to watch what the ER culture is like, spending time in the homeless...in the parks or wherever they’re hanging out together, or in the tent city, etc. So, those are the two crucial features to that. I think it would be misleading to say it’s an amalgam of things. It’s got a very, very specific focus. It’s challenging to do because I think it’s under done in that the amount of field research does not lend itself to easy funding and typical VA proposals. I think we tend not to do it a lot. It’s hard to fund someone to go spend that much time out in the field. But certainly with things like our homeless veterans, maybe that would be a very good kind of approach.

Moderator:Great. That is the final question that has come in. Do you have any concluding comments you'd like to make?

George Sayre:No, no. I appreciate people attending and I’m fairly evangelical about encouraging qualitative research. If someone asked who could I name who does it, I’m happy to say I can’t because there are so many people who are doing very, very good qualitative research. I would highly recommend that if you're not familiar with it and you see a need for it, you latch onto some of the people in your setting who do this. Many of, if not most of, our research sites have affiliated university settings and sometimes in psychology – frequently in nursing, nursing is one of the strongest disciplines in qualitative research – the schools, your affiliated universities will have faculty who do this. I highly recommend kind of latching onto someone and learning by doing.

Moderator:Great. I would like to thank you for sharing your expertise with the field. I’d also like to thank our attendees for joining us today. Please do look for the follow-up email that will contain a link to the recording and to the slides. So thanks once again, and this does conclude today’s HSR&D cyber seminar. 

George Sayre:Thank you Molly.

01:25:33END OF TAPE

Page 1 of 20

Page 20 of 20