It’s all becoming much clearer – week 7, basic research skills- basic?!

There is still so much to do. I have learned how to submit a paper now using ‘Turnitin’, my first assignment is submitted. I have completed the slides for this week. Using a qualitative paper I have found

(Hopton, A., Thomas, K., & MacPherson, H. (2013).

The Acceptability of Acupuncture for Low Back Pain: A Qualitative Study of Patient’s Experiences Nested within a Randomised Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e56806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056806)

I have managed to summarise how well it was conducted using the following questions: –

  • Is the research method/approach clearly defined?

Yes, this was a purposive sample, chosen for their differences in reply to a quantitative survey, they were originally randomised for the survey. The quantitative study is nested n a RCT.

  • Is the collection, management and analysis of the data transparent (and appropriate)?

Participants were interviewed – semi-structured and the results were coded using the analytical coding method to ensure systematic interpretation. Inter-researcher agreement was clearly explained. The form of analytical coding was inductive meaning there were no a-priori assumptions.

  • Are examples provided for key stages?

This was transparent and examples of coding were included in the document in diagram format.

  • Can you distinguish original data from interpretation (and do they support one another)?

Each identified theme (code) was discussed in turn and examples of original text incorporated in to the explanation.

This was a good example of thematic analysis using the framework method I think based on Braun and Clark (2006).

Braun, V ., Clarke, V .Using thematic analysis in psychology., 3:2 (2006), 77-101.

http://pages.stolaf.edu/2014psych-230/files/2013/08/ThematicAnalysis2006.pdf

They mention ‘latent’ themes, meaning to add interpretation to the themes and not just describing what has been said. Critical reflection at all stages of analysis is key.

It appears Framework analysis and thematic analysis is used interchangeably, there is no set recipe for documenting the themes, it appears there are a few suggestions including matrices and other frameworks that work for the researcher. The main position is there is a set way of achieving the themes and this is well described in the paper above. The most common understanding is that thematic analysis is not theory bound as is Grounded theory (and IPA and DA), which comes from a realist point of view. The data can be analysed inductively or deductively and from any philosophical and epistemological view point. Template analysis (Nigel King 1998), can be added underneath the umbrella of thematic analysis, as can framework analysis.

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1999-02931-006

I utilised the paper below to form the basis of my critique of the chosen paper.

Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. Gale et al (2013)

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/117

This was a paper explaining how to use thematic analysis by using an example of interviews collected to assess views on paediatric services.

So where next, assignment in and now reading about scoping reviews, have to have a 1,500 assignment in for 2.12.16, my protocol for conducting a scoping review , new learning need identified! Here goes : ) : –

formative-assignment-3.

Oh,and, whats the difference between ‘framework analysis’, ‘thematic analysis’ and ‘template analysis’? !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.