When it comes to detailed notion of what constitutes quality in qualitative research, there comes variety of explanations that deal with such conception. That is also to say that the variability of outsets of qualitative research exist to shape the trustworthiness and credibility, with challenging prerogatives as to what amount a good quality work (Seale, 1999). Rather than opting for the criteria promoted by one variety, “paradigm,” “moment,” or “school,” within qualitative research, practicing researchers can learn valuable lessons from each other (Seale, 1999). Validity and reliability are important terms of consideration as well. The impression of how effective research can be done is apparently aimed at giving other people some good ideas on how they might undertake their own research. I have learned from writing research articles that it is not the bulky nature of the articles that send vital and quality message to the readers or review boards, it is how the every bit and piece of the writing follow standard guidelines in qualitative research. For example, one of the two primary objectives on reviewing corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature is to make what we know about such literature more accessible to wider audiences or scholars. This can be done by blending and integrating the vast and heterogeneous CSR literature into a single state-of the-science review (Aguines & Glaves, 2012). The trustworthiness of qualitative research is frequently interrogated by positivists, perhaps because their concepts of validity and reliability cannot be addressed in the same way in naturalistic study. What I did in ensuring trustworthiness of any qualitative research/studies was to follow four strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative projects addressed by Guba’s four criteria for trustworthiness (Shenton, 2004). These are Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Conformability. Credibility, in addition to some associated criteria, is ensuring research followed adoption of appropriate and well recognized approaches (Shenton, 2004). The issue of transferability is to ensure research foundation and data build a context of study. Transferability help to complete face analysis in question, and to guide comparison and contrast (Shenton, 2004). Dependability is the methods of research overlapping. Dependability is also the description that allow further reviews and possible repetition of the study (Shenton, 2004). Conformability is making sure there is triangulation to ease consequence of investigator preconception (Shenton, 2004).
Ethical challenges of protecting participants’ privacy while respecting the shared experiences of others have been the forefront of every qualitative social researchers. Qualitative social researchers are on the whole, very sensitive to this ethical tightness. As a qualitative researcher, it is my responsibility to affirm and uphold participants’ confidentiality and privacy records. Confidentiality should always be central to the relationship between qualitative researchers, their counterparts and participants. I compared challenges of protecting privacy, minimizing harm, and respecting the shared experiences of others to the challenges of protecting patients’ medical records. This comparison may further be exemplified according to Business Journal Web (BJW) to protect patient’s privacy via federal health laws and policy changes. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) can be applied to contractors and business partners of the health care providers (Bauman, 2013). Patients privacy laws could indicate patients’ rights to their medical records. Qualitative researchers should equally emphasize ethical writing, while respecting the shared experience of others. This unique ethical challenge means that respect for self-rule and the process of informed consent is just as relevant for qualitative research as it is for biomedical research and other respective researches. Satisfying ethics committee’s requirement for informed consent is not merely jumping through a form of bureaucratic loop. The possible harms to participants in qualitative social research are frequently understated, and stem from the way of the interaction between a researcher and participant (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). As a result, it may be more difficult to identify, predict and analyze ethics applications in research. Strategies for reducing risk maybe difficult to spell out. Some of the challenges may involve situations where researchers mistakenly expose data confidentiality to the public. However, the concept of micro-ethics is also a valuable tool of conversation. This can further validate, and better understand the ethically important moments in qualitative research preparation (Ravitch, & Carl, 2016). Moreover, the concept of reflexivity does not seem to recommend detailed types of responses in research situations. Rather, it is an informing notion that may permit ethical preparation to occur in the intricacy and wealth of social research (Ravitch, & Carl, 2016).
References
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Bauman, V. (January 17, 2013). New federal health rule changes policy for protecting patient privacy. Business Journal: Healthcare. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/01/17/new-federal-health-rule-changes-policy.html
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
