Sometimes Coding Process is as Important as Content

We had a very interesting collaborative coding session today in our regular coding party for QRIP, reading a transcript about how men respond to penile rehab after prostate cancer surgery.

For the first time it really dawned on me fully why line-by-line analysis can be so important...even though we weren't there at the interview a careful analysis revealed a great deal..so careful, in fact that we we spent 1 hr 30mins looking at about 15 lines of text...

What we saw was very interesting.....we were not only able to see the content (that the participant had a good sex life before surgery) but the process...that his short distancing statements about his sex life suggested he was finding the questions difficult and that they could have been causing him distress because of his losses.......only a very careful line-by-line analysis would have allowed this..we noticed, for example, that the word "it" was used instead of sex, that he referred to "males" in a general sense rather than himself when talking about the effect of the surgery on his sex life....it raised many hypotheses that would not have been possible by rushed analysis, or maybe even slow analysis done by only one person...

Like therapy it seems important to pay attention to the way words are used not just their content...the process can be as important to understand and code as that content.....it would also seem that focusing on these dynamics are critical when actually interviewing.....the way language is used can guide you about the sensitive decision-making required..do I probe more here? Is it too much for the interviewee? Shall I ask for permission to continue down this track? Is it me that's more scared of emotions than the interviewee? Are they responding to my anxiety rather than their own?

Into the Lions Den or Just Another Conference?

Below's the Abstract I submitted today for this conference..what do you reckon...suicide?

What Standards Should Be Set for Qualitative Research Conducted in a Science Faculty:

Psychology, Rigour and the Politics of Evidence

Presenting Author: Paul Rhodes (p.rhodes@sydney.edu.au)

Clinical Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006

Keywords: qualitative research, trustworthiness, epistemology

Abstract

While the field of clinical psychology has traditionally relied on empirical research, particularly in the form of randomised control trials, many important questions can also be answered by a wide range of qualitative methods. These methods allow for a closer analysis of therapeutic process, the narrative and interior life of the client, the ways in which meaning is constructed by those in distress and much more. Despite increasing recognition tensions arise when advocating for and employing qualitative methods in a science faculty, tensions that can only be alleviated by what Derrida (1997) calls ‘An Ethic of Hospitality.’ This ethics implies a process of mutual influence between researchers, one which has the potential to both deepen the focus of traditional clinical research and enhance the rigour applied to qualitative work.  Ten standards are proposed to ensure trustworthiness in qualitative research, including, including those which support researcher reflexivity and the credibility and dependability of findings. Specific examples of current studies that rely on these standards will be provided. 

Episto-WTF? An Introduction to Epistomology

An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher were hiking together through the hills of Scotland. They reached a hilltop. Looking over to the nexthilltop, they saw a black sheep. 

In delight, the engineer cried, “What do you know? The sheep in Scotland are black!” 

“Well, some of the sheep in Scotland are black,” replied the experimental physicist. 

The theoretical physicist considered this a minute, then said, “Well, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black.” 

The philosopher thought for a second, then responded, “Well, it’s black on one side, anyway.”

What is epistomology? is a question that comes up a lot in my lectures so I thought id try for a brief introduction...it is a philosophical concept that is fundamental to doing research...


Essentially it is the branch of philosophy that looks at notions of knowledge, particularly tackling the question of whether something can ever be considered true or not.....if your a determinist you believe truth is out there (and in many cases quantitative researcher you are more likely to seek generalisable truths)... although in reality many scientists might shy away from the idea that scientific method can find truth rather than approximations...

....if you are a social contructionist you are more likely to see truth as a somewhat ridiculous concept given that "truths" are constructed socially, through dominant narratives that can keep us from living 'preferred' lives...

Of course, it all lies on a continuum..grounded theory is more likely to be modernist, unless you go round the post-modern turn by using situational analysis... interpretative phenomenology is somewhere in the middle (contructivist?)...discourse analysis looks directly at deconstructing language and revealing how notions of truth can be nothing more than power plays..

....below excellent slides re: psychology

Epistemologies for qualitative research

View more documents from marilini1ili

...a brilliant article HERE
Making connections: The relationship between epistemology and  research methods

The Australian Community Psychologist                                                                                                                     Volume 19  No 1 May 2007
Dawn Darlaston-Jones
University of Notre Dame, Australia
The ability to identify the relationship between the epistemological foundation of research and the methods employed in conducting it is critical in order for research to be truly meaningful. Unfortunately this connection is  often not taught in the research methods classes that most psychology students experience. Indeed the very names of these units emphasises the focus on methods and consequently the epistemology, theoretical frameworks and methodologies that influence the choice of  methods remain ‘hidden’ from view. This paper brings into focus these hidden (or often overlooked and ignored) elements of research and illustrates the importance and relevance  by drawing on example from the author’s research into the student experience of higher education.  

Research Changes Things: Community-Based Participatory Action

I got approached by a lovely student today who was keen to do a project looking at parenting in Kenya, wanting to see how TripleP might be adapted to be culturally sensitive...what an excellent project and one that immediately brought Community-Based Participatory Action to mind..research that actually joins with communities to do something about a local problem rather than simply counting heads or words and producing a paper..

Here is a really great manual on how to do it...produced Published by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Government

Here is a definition from it


PAR is emancipatory to the extent that it includes as active participants those who are most affected by the issues under investigation, especially the least powerful. In human services this is typically the clients and target groups of service delivery. Social programs should benefit those vulnerable individuals, groups and communities who experience the issue being targeted by the intervention. PAR conceptualises the participation of service users and other target groups of intervention as important for philosophical reasons (respect, voice, rights), to ensure the most responsive strategies are developed and to achieve the best possible outcomes. 4 On PAR   Using Participatory Action Research to Improve Early InterventionPAR, in a human service context, is practical.  There are typically a variety of factors which contribute to a particular social problem (such as youth homelessness).  Responding in a way that improves the situation of service users often requires support or change from a variety of agencies. Many of you will be familiar with the phrase ‘joined up problems require joined up solutions’. The involvement of a diversity of stakeholders, who may have a wide range of values, institutionallocations, and organisational interests, means that PAR in human services will need to have a practical as well as inclusive character.  PAR undertaken as part of government funded social programs could be argued as containing an element of technical Action Research. Those funding the program (usually governments) will have broad goals and legitimate interests in understanding how to improve policy and practice. Whilst the specific questions pursued by a PAR process are left to the funded services and their co-researchers, the institutional context does have an interest in what it takes to achieve the programs goals and objectives


Here's a great piece of work as an example


Sexual health through the eyes of Indigenous youth

Report prepared by Julie Mooney-Somers, Wani Erick, David Brockman, Robert Scott and
Lisa Maher on behalf of the Indigenous Resiliency Project.

Eschew obfuscation

Who'se fed up of reading methods papers that you cant understand or stay well away from notions of HOW YOU ACTUALLY DO IT!#$$%##

Me, for sure...Im voting for a rule that says you have to write a ten bullet point method to describe what you actually did in the method section of your paper so we can understand it..plus all papers about qual methods can only be one page long?? 

Philosophy and epistomological discussion is critical of course in qual research..thank god we dont take it for granted like quantitative researchers do, but some degree of structured guidelines are also needed..please......here's a joke to further elucidate

How do you propose marriage in postmodernish...

"Given that there is a traditional transcendence of social antinomy and polarity in a variety of culturally sanctioned paradigms of persisting mutuality and reciprocation; and given that a multiplicity of precedents in our interactions predispose one to envision the practicality and workability, and indeed the desirability, of our acquiescing in an appropriate mode of combating social antimony and polarity, it seems prudent that you and I launch the culturally-sanctioned paradigmatic transcendence of antimony and polarity such that the overall consequence will be a maximization of multiple utilities and benefits that are beyond the reach of the isolated and not uncommonly forlorn individual.”

Supervision: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly?

Found this excellent article in the New Scientist about how to chose a good PhD supervisor..HERE


'Your supervisor will be a mentor, friend, confidante, adviser and also a voice of reason, so make sure it's a voice you'll want to hear. "Over the course of three years, it's crucial to have someone who can encourage you when your experiments fall flat, challenge you when you become cocky and help steer you towards successfully submitting your thesis," says broadcaster and writer Simon Singh, who did a PhD in particle physics at the University of Cambridge.'

The main points....

Shared interests are the building blocks of your relationship
A good supervisor says all the right things
Choose a supervisor who excites you
Supervisors can be stereotyped - pick your favourite
Personal chemistry is important
See a variety of people
Keep channels of communication free from static
Prepare to take the reins

HERE on the other hand are rules for bad supervision....main points

Rule 1: Be inaccessible. 
Rule 2: Don’t return written work because you are “too busy” to read it. 
Rule 3: Humiliate and belittle your students with savage, brutal and unfair criticism.
Rule 4: A somewhat different tactic employed successfully by some bad supervisors is to
treat their PhD students as unpaid research assistants.
Rule 5: Offer bad advice. Bad advice can take a number of forms.
1. Suggest an inappropriate topic. 
2. Recommend research methods that have poor validity or reliability.
3. Recommend inappropriate statistical methods for analysing the results.
4. Allow your student to submit a thesis that is based on insufficient research.
5. Encourage your student to carry out far more work than is necessary.
6. Discourage your student from publishing prior to submission.
Rule 6: Choose bad examiners. 

Divorce Your Supervisor?

Here is a very important topic....what to do when your supervisor sucks..check this post on a great blog called The Thesis Whisperer

Excerpt....The relationship had broken down spectacularly, there was no communication, and I sat in tears not knowing how I could get myself out of this. However, I managed to recover and submit my thesis, thankfully, and am now the proud owner of a doctorate, but I understand how isolating it is being in that position and feeling there is no way to turn. This can lead many people, more than you would initially think, to quit. However, there is much that can be done to resolve the situation should you wish for an academic divorce and allow you to finish and submit your thesis. Therefore I offer you some advice based on my own experience.


Heres some funny slides on manageing your Phd supervisor

Here is my list of the top ten things that should make you question if your supervisor is really right

1. Always being critical no matter what happens
2. Never answers emails
3. Forgets to show up for meetings
4. Doesn't know the methods your using
5. Looks like they are faking it
6. Doesn't read stuff you send
7. Isn't tough with you when you f..k up
8. Too closely aligned with you and tries to be friends
9. Looks down your top
10. Falls asleep during supervision

got any.....(soon ill post the top ten reasons to divorce your student)