Tagged / FHSS

CQR Members Delight Norwegian Visitors—“a very memorable experience”

DSCF4546 copy

Norwegian visitors and CQR Members share results of arts-based research efforts at HSS. (Photos: Anne Quinney)

Five Members of BU’s Centre for Qualitative Research (Lee-Ann Fenge; Caroline Ellis-Hill; Maggie Hutchings; Michele Board; Anne Quinney) wowed recent visitors to FHSS from Sogn og Jordane University College in Norway. The College is based in the Sogn og Fjordane University College (Førde, Norway) which is currently situated on two campuses in Forde and Songdal on the west of Norway and on the longest and deepest Fjord in the world.

Each CQR member took a turn in presenting a short and sharp ten-minute demonstration by means of sharing the outputs of an arts-based qualitative project. These included:

  1. Ephemera workshop—sharing life stories via personal objects
  2. Seen but Seldom Heard –short video screening of a poetry project with disabled youth
  3. HeART of Stroke Project—sharing of a painting project for Stroke patients
  4. Meaning of Home photo project – sharing of photo book of baby boomers’ recollections of home
  5. Methods to Diversity—sharing and distribution of Method Deck of cards to encourage LGBT and ageing awareness
Collages5

Various arts-based projects shared with Norwegian visitors. (Photos: Anne Quinney)

A screening of the award-winning, research-based short film, RUFUS STONE, then followed the five short presentations. The visiting scholars remarked that they were very moved by the film. Overall, they appreciated the nuances in the use of arts-based approaches to create as well as disseminate research projects.

CQR is known internationally as a hub of excellence in Performative Social Science, a theoretically based approach to using tools from the arts and humanities in researching and/or disseminating a wide variety of health and social science topics.

One team member remarked, “On reflection, many of the messages from the six presentations overlapped, and so we created a very coherent and deep forum by means of hands-on sharing of objects”.

Another said, “There was a real buzz in the room and the event proved a great showcase for focusing on the strengths, power, magic, beauty, depth, richness of the many and varied CQR activities”.

Elizabeth Rosser, HSS’ Deputy Dean for Education and Professional Practice, who organised the three day visit to BU, summed up the Norwegians’ response: “They were MOST impressed and felt they gained considerably from the meeting with the Centre for Qualitative Research members”.

Visitors from Norway:

  1. Dr Anne-Grethe Halding: Associate Professor, Head of Department of Health Studies
  2. Professor Maj-Britt Raholm: Professor of Nursing
  3. Dr Anne Marie Sandvoll: Head of Postgraduate Education, Faculty of Health Studies
  4. Dr Aud Marie Øien: Research lead, Faculty of Health Studies
  5. Dr Eli Natvik: Early Career researcher and academic recently commenced at the University College from clinical practice as a physiotherapist.

Stay in touch with CQR on:

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/54608373386/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BUQualitative

CQR website: https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/centre/centre-for-qualitative-research/

 

Proposed New Research Centre: Centre for Social and Cultural Research

social researchExpressions of Interest sought:

A new interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary Research Centre is proposed by Professor Ann Brooks, Prof of Sociology and Head of Research and Professional Practice in the Department of Social Sciences and Social Work (HSS). The Centre has already attracted academic colleagues from across BU and is designed to encourage the building of research synergies across different disciplinary areas.

The aims of the new Centre are as follows:

  • To offer an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary Research Centre, to include social and cultural fields of research from across the Faculty and cross-Faculty, to develop research synergies and provide a productive and dynamic research culture;
  • To provide for a wide range of methodologies that address both theoretical and applied areas of research that contribute to building a platform for a range of research collaborations, publications, grant funding, conferences and consultancy;
  • To provide an inclusive intellectual forum for research across social and cultural spheres providing national and international outreach for networking building on established relationships;

 

The range of research areas covered by the proposed new Centre to date includes:

  • Gender based areas of research covering the media, women’s history,  education, health, social work and emotional labour (among other areas);
  • Emotions, intimacy and relationship analysis from a social and psychotherapeutic perspective, including emotional vulnerabilities and emotions and social change;
  • Physical and mental health around the concept of stigma;
  • Protection and safeguarding in social work and social care
  • Media based research including historically based research on women and the media. Media and popular culture;
  • Psychological and cross-cultural aspects of consumer behaviour and experience in tourism and leisure;
  • Cultural and social deprivation in sociological and social work research;
  • Citizenship, education and social diversity and marginalisation;
  • Academia, public intellectuals, HE policy debates. Research positions in academia.

 

The wide range of research interests will provide colleagues with opportunities to participate in events locally, regionally and nationally and provide opportunities to work collaboratively with colleagues who may be located in different faculties.

Expressions of Interest in the proposed new Research Centre are welcome. Please contact Prof Ann Brooks: abrooks@bournemouth.ac.uk

Mixed methods: not without its downside?

REF Subjects

Prof Edwin van Teijlingen

Conducting mixed-methods research has become very popular over the past decade especially in the health research field.1-4 This development ties in with the growth in inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research. Many grant applications, PhD project and the resulting papers especially in the health field apply a mixed-methods approach, where in the past a single approach would have dominated.   This interest in combining methods seems to be the case even in the more traditional quantitative field of clinical effectiveness and randomised controlled trials. Whilst I find this development encouraging as a mixed-methods social scientist, it also makes me wonder whether the applicants putting forward a mixed-methods project have thought about the disadvantages or at least the opportunity costs of using such approach.

A mixed-methods approach is ‘simply’ combining two or more research methods to address a research question, i.e. what the label suggests. It is often perceived as the combining of qualitative with quantitative methods, but it can technically also be a mix of quantitative methods or a combination of qualitative methods. The advantage of a mixed-methods approach is that the different methods in the mix address different aspects of the research question and that combining these methods offers a synergetic effect. So what are the possible limitations of or barriers to mixed-methods research?

First, using a mixed-methods approach means you need an understanding of two different philosophies and how to bring the findings of these two different methods together.4-6   One requires expertise in two different research approaches, either as individual or in the team as well as someone who can do the combining of the findings. For the latter you really need someone in the team who understand the pragmatic approach commonly used in mixed-methods approaches. Otherwise there is a great risk that the original mixed-methods study will be analysed and reported as two or more separate papers each based on data from one of the methods applied in the mixed-methods study.

Secondly, you can spend your money only once, hence there are opportunity costs. Thus if the maximum grant is £200,000 or £300,000 you can’t spend the full amount on the designing a large-scale quantitative study/survey, as you need to spend a proportion of your money and your attention and time on your qualitative study.

Thirdly, and related the above, both quantitative and qualitative methods have ‘rules’ about sampling and sample-size.5 Just because you have two methods this does not mean you can necessarily do a study with a smaller sample. The sample size calculations will still say you need at least xxx participants. Similarly, although perhaps not so rigidly you need a certain number of interviews or focus groups to do you qualitative study appropriately.

Fourthly, a common mistake seems to be to add a bit of qualitative research to a larger quantitative study, perhaps a bit tokenistic.7 Often it is so obvious in a grant application that the qualitative research is an add-on, an afterthought perhaps from a reviewer in the previous failed grant application.

Finally, not all mixed-methods studies are the same, in fact each mixed-methods study is more or less unique in the way in the way it mixes and matched individual research methods.3 So although mixed-methods may be the best way to address a particular research question, your particular proposed mixed of quantitative and qualitative research might not be the most appropriate to answer the overall research question.8

As with all research methods and research proposals my recommendation is if in doubt go and find an expert for advice.6 If necessary get an expert on your team of researchers to strengthen your application.

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1.  Barbour, R.S. (1999) The case of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 4(1): 39-43.
  2. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Sathian, B. (2014) Mixed-methods approaches in health research in Nepal, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 415-416.
  3. Plano Clark, V.L., Anderson, N., Wertz, J.A., Zhou, Y., Schumacher, K., Miaskowski, C. (2015) Conceptualizing Longitudinal Mixed Methods Designs: A Methodological Review of Health Sciences Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9: 297-319.
  4. MacKenzie Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E. Pitchforth, E. (2014) Advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 417-422. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/12018/9768
  5. Bryman, A. (1988) Quality and Quantity in Social Research, London: Routledge
  6. Bazeley, P. (2003) Teaching mixed methods. Qualitative Research Journal, 4: 117-126.
  7. Maxwell, J.A. (2016) Expanding the History and Range of Mixed Methods Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10: 12-27.
  8. Brannen, J. (2005) Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative & quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(3): 173-85.

 

Congratulations to Dr. Caroline Ellis-Hill

NIHRDr. Caroline Ellis-Hill  has just been accepted as a qualitative methodologist on the NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) panel for Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR).  Caroline from the Centre for Qualitative Research (CQR) in FHSS is the second BU academic to join a NIHR panel this year.  Earlier this year Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen was invited to be a member of the NIHR’s HTA Clinical Evaluation & Trials Board ( http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/our-people ).

Congratulations!

Professors Vanora Hundley & Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Prof. Paul Lewis awarded OBE

Awarded & submitted bids

Congratulations to Professor Emeritus Paul Lewis who is listed on this year’s Queen’s Birthday Honours List. Professor Lewis has been awarded his OBE for Services to Mothers, Midwives and Maternity Services. Bournemouth University celebrated the retirement of Professor Lewis in October 2011.1 He had been leading midwifery education at Bournemouth University since 1995. The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) recognised his contribution to the midwifery profession by including his name on the Register of Honorary Fellows of the RCM.

DSC02264

Amongst his many contributions to the field, Prof. Lewis was a founding member of the journal The Practising Midwife. Just a few months ago Prof. Lewis co-authored a paper under the title ‘The loss of midwifery supervision: to mourn or rejoice?’ This paper was published in the March 2015 edition of The Practising Midwife. This paper ‘reflected on and discusses some of the possible consequences of the NMC’s decision to end statutory supervision of midwives in the UK.2

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Tully, S. and Tobias, J.H., 2011. The retirement of the UK’s first male professor of midwifery – Paul Lewis. MIDIRS Essence (Dec. issue).
  2. Lewis P, Freemantle D and Ireland J., 2015/ The loss of midwifery supervision: to mourn or rejoice? The Practising Midwife 18(4): 12-16.