Evaluating Programs Using Qualitative Data Collection, and a Mixed Methods Approach
Qualitative data is a type of scientific research which gives information about qualities which cannot be measured. Following the high number of suicide rates in Lorain County in the state of Ohio, the government developed a program run under local organization to help control the numbers and acquire a proper understanding of the problem. What is the root cause that drives many young people in this region to commit suicide? What measures can be taken to help reduce the numbers?
Social scientists usually use this method in their studies to help investigate an event or recurring norm that majorly occurs in a particular community or setting. A researcher draws a group of people and interacts with them in a discussion outlined to help acquire information vital to the research question. A focus group consists of 5 to 15 contributors. (Hammarberg et al, 500). They must have a good understanding of their community. By asking the prearranged questions one-on-one to participants one can acquire relevant information to help with the research. They can help answer the question on the root cause of suicide among the youth.
In-depth Interviews
A researcher speaks with their participants in a one-on-one setting usually with a prewritten list of questions based on the participants’ willingness to respond. (Dowling et al, 684). One might consider engaging with a suicide survivor victim from the area and have a comprehensive talk from what pushed him or her to commit suicide and how they are coping. The researcher will find valuable information regarding root cause and ways on how to manage it.
Analysis of qualitative data is a systematic and highly interactive process needed for the interpretation of data, whether visual or textual. The quality of the analysis directly translates to the amount of time invested. The best way of analyzing data reduces on error, repetition and is easy to understand.
Reading and Re-reading
This method consists of a systematic, careful and repeated reading approach aimed to identify consistent themes and connections from the data. By repeatedly reading, new connections, deeper meaning and themes are derived from the first reading. This is the key to acknowledging the flow and context of each interview.
Coding
This involves developing codes for marking areas of texts for selected retrieval in the later stages of analysis. Structural coding adheres to the structure of interview guide while thematic coding identifies common themes appearing across several interviews. It achieves this by relying on the topic guide or emerging themes upon further analysis. New codes that are formed from repeated reading are layered on top of pre-existing ones (Elliot, 2855).
Mixed methods is a research approach where researchers gathers and analyze the qualitative and quantitative data from a similar study.
The Triangulation Design
This is the most frequent approach to mixing methods. It’s key purpose is to get different but complimentary data on a similar area of study. Key strengths and weak points of quantitative methods are brought out. A researcher uses this method if they wish to correlate both the quantitative with qualitative resultss.
The Embedded Design
This is a mixed method design where one particular set of data provides a secondary supportive function in a study dependent of the other data type. With this design, one set of data is inefficient with each single question requiring a different set of data. A researcher will consider this design when they need to strengthen a qualitative element with a qualitative design.
Works Cited
Dowling, Robyn, Kate Lloyd, and Sandie Suchet-Pearson. “Qualitative methods 1: Enriching the interview.” Progress in human geography 40.5 (2016): 679-686.
Hammarberg, Karin, Maggie Kirkman, and Sheryl de Lacey. “Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them.” Human reproduction 31.3 (2016): 498-501
Elliott, Victoria. “Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis.” The Qualitative Report 23.11 (2018): 2850-2861.