The qualitative research proposal

H Klopper, PhD; iVIBA o ^ o *u A^Professor, School of Nursing Science, North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus), South Afnca

Key words: Proposal, QualitativeResearch, Attributes, QualitativeProcess

Abstract: Curationis 31(4): 62-72Qualitative research in the health sciences has had to overcome many prejudices anda number of misunderstandings, but today quaUtative research is as acceptable asquantitative research designs and is widely funded and published. Writing theproposal of a quaUtative study, however, can be a challenging feat, due to the emergentnature of the qualitative research design and the description of the methodology asa process. Even today, many sub-standard proposals at post-graduate evaluationcommittees and application proposals to be considered for funding are still seen.This problem has led the researcher to develop a framework to guide the qualitativereseareher in writing the proposal of a qualitative stiidy based on the followingresearch questions : (i) What is the process of writing a qualitative research proposal?and (ii) What does the structure and layout of a qualitative proposal look like? Thepurpose of this article is to discuss the process of writing the qualitative researchproposal, as well as describe the structure and layout of a qualitative research proposal.The process of writing a qualitative research proposal is discussed with regards tothe most important questions that need to be answered in your research proposalwith consideration of the guidelines of being practical, being persuasive, makingbroader links, aiming for crystal clarity and planning before you write. While thestinctiare of the qualitative research proposal is discussed with regards to the keysections of the proposal, namely the eover page, abstract, intiroduction, review of theliterature, researeh problem and research questions, research purpose and objectives,research paradigm, researeh design, research method, ethieal considerations,dissemination plan, budget and appendices.

Correspondence address:ProfHCKlopperSchool of Nursing ScienceNorth-West University

Tel: (018)2991829/1830Fax:(018)2991827Email: Hester.Klopper@nwu.ac.za

Background andintroductionMorse (2003:833) points out thatqualitative methodology is used whenlittle is known about a topic, theresearch context is poorly understood,the boundaries of a domain are ill-defined, the phenomenon underinvestigation is not quantifiable, thenature of the problem is not clear, orthe researeher suspeets that thephenomenon needs to be re-examined.Researchers need a clear picture of theissues and questions that they want toinvestigate, as well as ideas of howthey are going to go about investigatingthem, but always with an openness ofmind to improvise, revise and adjust.Writing a proposal for â qualitative

62

study is therefore a challenge, as thequaUtative researcher "designs studiesby conducting them - as opposed toconducting studies by design"(Sandelowsld & Barroso, 2003:781),Quantitative researchers generallybelieve they know what they do notknow (i.e. knowing the type ofknowledge they expect to obtain bydoing a study and then striving toobtain it). A qualitative researcher, bycontrast, enters the study "notknowing what is known" (i.e. notknowing the phenomenon that willdrive the inquiry forward) (Loiselle,Profetto-McGrath, Polit & Beelc,2004:208). The qualitative proposalwriter can therefore only antieipate howthe study will proceed. Qualitativereseareh begins by accepting that tliere

is a range of different ways of makingsense of the world (that the truth is onlyvalid in a specific context) and isconcerned with discovering themeanings seen by those who are beingresearched and with understandingtheir view of the world rather than thatofthe researcher (Jones, 1995:2)

Problem statementQualitative research in the healthsciences has had to overcomeprejudice and a number ofmisunderstandings. Some of themisunderstandings include the beliefsthat qualitative research is "easy"; andthe "stigma of the small sample".However, by now we know thatqualitative research experts make thesemisinterpretations redundant andiitelevant as more and more qualitativestudies are funded, and results arepubhshed widely. Notwithstanding thefact that qualitative research is now asacceptable as quandtative researchdesigns, sub-standard proposals atpost-graduate evaluation committees orapplication proposals to be consideredfor funding are sdll seen. Writing theproposal of a qualitative study ischallenging due to the emergent natureof the quahtative research design andthe description of the methodology asa process. In response to the nature ofhealth care practices that focus onpatient care, there is an increasedtendency to investigate phenomenafrom a qualitative perspective.Therefore the following quesdons canbe asked: (i) What is the process ofwdting a qualitadve research proposal?and (ii) What docs the structure andlayout of a qualitative proposal lookülíe?

PurposeThe purpose of this article is twofold,i.e. the process of writing the quahtativeresearch proposal will be discussed,followed by a description of thestructure of a qualitative researchproposal, including examples fromqualitative studies (where relevant).

Process ofthe qualitativeproposalQualitative researchers often findthemselves in a "catch-22" situadon.They have intentionally selected aqualitative research design, as little is

known about the phenomenon to bestudied; yet it is expected to wdte howdata analysis will be done when the datais not hiown. However, it is imperativethat the researcher must convince theproposal evaluadon committee orfunding agency reviewers in order tobe allowed to proceed with the study.In response to this situadon, Morseand Field (1996:35) remark that "clearly,developing a rigid plan for a qualitativeproject, including detailed plans fordata coUecdon and analysis, becomesimpossible when wddng qualitadveproposals". Unlilce positivist research,there is no single accepted framewodcfor a qualitadve research proposal. Topresent an acceptable proposal meansshifting away from one's own concemsand thinking about the questions thatthe reader(s) or reviewer(s) of theresearch proposal will be asking(Silverman, 2000:113). These questionsdo not necessarily differ from thequestions asked in quantitativeresearch, but will alert one to thepossible questions that will be asked.

The questions a research proposalmust answer, are: (i) Why shouldanyone be interested in my research?(ü) Is the research design credible,achievable and carefully explained—inother words, is it logical? (iii) Is theresearcher capable of doing theresearch? (Bottorff, 2002:7). Silverman(2000:113 -117) suggests that theresearcher (whether qualitative orquandtative) answers these questionsproperly. This can be achieved byfocusing on the following guidelines:be practical, be persuasive, makebroader links, aim for crystal cladty andplan before you write.

Be practicalIndicate to the members ofthe proposalevaluation committee or fundingagency reviewers how yo\ir researchwill address the identified researchproblem or solve an issue, for example,staff morale orpatients' perceptions ofquality of care. Research that concemspractical problems cannot be shruggedoff even if the researcher is proposingto do a purely academic piece ofresearch with no expectation that it willbe read outside the universitycommunity (Silverman, 2000:114). Theaudience is therefore very importantwhen prepadng the proposal. Straussand Corbin (1990:237-239) differentiate

between four types of audiences andtheir different expectations, namelyacademic colleagues, policy-makers,practidoners and lay audiences. Forproposal acceptance the audience willbe the members of the proposalevaluation committee or/and thefunding agency reviewers.

The University of Jyväskylä providesguidelines to their post graduatestudents and indicate that they shoulddistinguish between the followingaudiences (http://wvvTv.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/kielet/oppiaineet_kls/e n g l a n t i / r e s e a r c h / p o s t g r a d /insti-ucdons, accessed 31/07/2008):

(i) the research community that itaddresses (i.e. those doing research onsimilar or related quesdons); and / or(ii) to a community of practitioners whowork with the kinds of problems orquestions that your study addresses(e.g. language teachers, text producers,professionals who design language /communication training, etc.); and /or(iii) to the broader social community orsociety as a whole (e.g. does yourresearch address questions that areimportant for particular groups ofpeople or questions which arecun'cntly debated in society?)

Be persuasiveMorse (1994:226) explains that "the firstprinciple of grantmanship (and for thatmatter approval of your proposal) is torecognize that a good proposal is anargument... the proposal must take acase to the proposal evaluationcommittee or funding agency that theresearch question is interesting andthat the study is important. Thus theproposal must be written persuasively."As a researcher you must be balanced,with a realisdc understanding of whatyou can achieve (Silverman, 2000:114).To be persuasive implies that "youmust convince other people, like otherresearchers, research fundingagencies, educational insdtutions, andsupervisors that your research is worthspending scarce resources on. Youconvince people ofthe value of yourwork by showing them how yourresearch will make a difference to theworld, or by identifying a dilemma inexisting theory which yoxjr research willhelp resolve" (Higson-Smith, Parle,Lange ÄTothill, 2000:5).

63

Make broader linksThe researcher should demonstrate inthe proposal the understanding ofthebroader implications of tbe proposedresearch (Silverman, 2000:114-115).Morse (1994:227) suggests that oneway of acbieving this is to "place theproblem in context to show, forinstance, that wben we understandthis, we will be able to work on that".For example, indicate how yourresearch will improve practice orinfluence policy.

Aim for crystal clarityThe aim ofthe researcher sbould be forclearly stated, in simple language thatdescribes tbe researcb in a way thatnon-specialists can comprehend.Morse (1994:227) argues that tberesearcher sbould resist the temptationto lapse into pure jargon, as "some ofthe reviewers will be from otherdisciplines, and the proposal writershould assume nothing and explaineverything". Silverman (2000:115)gives advice to tbe researcher andstates that tbe proposal sbould beconcise, using sbort, simple sentences.

Plan before you writeRemember the saying "If you fail toplan, you plan to fail." It is importantthat the vmter plans the process, as theproposal should not only demonstratetbat it is based on an intelligentunderstanding ofthe existing literature,but it must also show that the wiiterhas thought about tbe time needed toconduct each stage of tbe researcb(Silverman, 2000:116). Timemanagement is embedded in theplanning process. The proposal willalso be judged on the researcher'saccount ofhow time will be used. Arber(1993:35) notes that one needs "toadopt a systematic and logicalapproach to researcb, tbe key to wbicbis the planning and management of yourtime". Attention is given to timelinesfrirtber on in the manuscript.

Structure of thequalitative proposalThe key sections of a qualitativeproposal are listed below and attentionwill be paid to each. As explainedabove, tbis framework is meant to guidethe qualitative researcber, but is notintended to be used as a recipe. The

framework should be applied within theuniqueness of each study.

Cover pageFormal documents usually bave a coverpage. The format of the cover page isoften provided by tbe proposalevaluation committee or tbe flindingagency. Ifno format is provided, createa cover page and include the following(Morse & Field, 1996:39-40):• Title of the proposal.

• Name and affiliation oftheresearcher (principalinvestigator) and add Co-investigators (if relevant).The affiliation will include thetype of degree, for exampleMaster in PublicAdministration, as well as thename ofthe university wheretbe study will be conducted.

• Lines for tbe signatures oftheresearcher as well as theuniversity authorities.

• Contact detail information -address, phone and faxnumbers, and e-mail address.

AbstractThe abstract is a synopsis of tbeproposal; yet it is important that it iscomprehensive enough to inform theevaluators or reviewers, and tointroduce the project (Morse & Field,1996:40). It should include a shortintroduction to the research problem,tbe research question, researchpurpose and objectives, followed bythe researcb design and researchmethod. Tbe abstract is usually 250-300 words long, but tbis is oftendictated by tbe committee guidelinesor the funding agency. Firstimpressions count, and this is also truefor the abstract, as this will be tbe firstpart tbat tbe reviewers read. It isadvisable to leave the writing of theabstract until tbe end, as it will be easierto write after you have clarity of tberesearch process. The inclusion of nomore than five keywords is advisableat the end of the abstract. Structurecan be given to the abstract by addingheadings, i.e. Background, Aim(Purpose and specific objectives). DataSource, Metbod, Results andConclusion, followed by Keywords.

IntroductionBegin witb something interesting tbat

immediately catcbes attention.Introduce the question and what it isthat you want to know or understand,and explain the interest in the topic(Heath, 1997:1). Tbe introduction mustget tbe attention of the reader andconvince him/her of the value of thestudy, or, as Sandelowski (2002:9)describes it, it must "set tbe stage". Atthe beginning of the proposal thesignificance of the study should bestated and it must be made clear whytbere is a need for the study(Sandelowsld, 2002:9). Burns andGrove (2005:667-668) provide questionsthat can be used to assess thesignificance of tbe study: (i) Wbo hasan interest in the domain of inquiry?(ii) What do we already know aboutthe topic? (iii) What has not beenanswered adequately in previousresearch and practice? And (iv) Howwill this research add to knowledge,practice, and policy in tbis area?Furthermore, tbe introduction sets thescene and puts the research in context(Bumard, 2004:175). When writing foran international audience, it isimportant to place the research in anintemational context.

Review of the literatureRelevant literatuie should be cited tbatdemonstrates the need for the reseai'cbstudy in such a manner tbat itconvinces the evaluators or reviewersthat the study is worthwhile. "Literatureconsists of all written sources relevantto the topic you have selected" [or thepbenomenon under investigation](Bums & Grove, 2005:93). It is often achaËenge to include all relevant or mostsupportive literature as data, knowledgeand information availability expanddaily in the digitally enhancedknowledge environment, doublingevery eighteen months in 2008. It istherefore suggested that the researchercritique previous research, anddemonstrates how the present studywill clarify or compensate forshortcomings in previous research andbow tbe study will add to tbe existingbody of knowledge. The literaturereview provides a theoretical contextfor the study, but is not a conceptualframework, as it does not diive tbestudy or provide an outline for tbeanalysis (Morse & Field, 1996: 41).Apart from simply offering an accountof the researcb tbat has been carriedout previously, tbe autbor should

describe how he or she searched thehterature. This involves describing thecomputer search engines used and thekeywords entered into those engines(Bumard, 2004:175). For example:"Searches were performed using thefollowing resources: Nexus database.South African Journal database orSAePublications, internationaljournal databases (EBSCOhost andScienceDirect), boolcs, dictionaries,theses and dissertations from theNorth-West University library andinter-library loans" (Knobloch &íGopper, 2008:6).

The literatui-e review is not necessarilya separate heading, as it could beintegrated in the introduction,providing a rationale for the plannedstudy. Bums & Grove (2005:95) pointout that the puipose and the timing ofthe literature review could vary inqualitative research, based on the typeof study to be conducted. Table 1summarises the purpose of theliterature review in qualitative research.

Research problem (and researchquestion)In this section the researcher answersthe question: "What is the problem? "Sandelowslci (2002:9) suggests thatnumbers should be used to documentthe extent and nature of the problem.As research is a logical process, the

research problem is a synthesis of theintroduction and literature review; inother words, it is a "diagnosis " of theproblem. The problem can be broad,but must be speeific enough toconvince the reviewers that it is worthfocusing on (Bottorff, 2002:11). Thesection on the research problem mustconclude with the research question tobe answered. The research question(s)should be how questions. Thefollowing format is suggested tostructure research questions forqualitative studies (but it is also relevantto quantitative studies) (http://ñlebox.vt.edu/users/nespor /design,accessed 17 May 2004):• How has/have the activity/

relations changed as theactivity/relations has/havechanged? "Activities " referto relatively long-term, on-going, collective socialendeavours (for examplestudying at university, livinga healthy lifestyle, raising afamily, etc.). "Relations " referto on-going systems ofrelations organised aroundgender, ethnic group, age, orbetween the role players in aformal organisation, forexample worker/supervisor;student/lecturer; health careprofessional/patient.Example: How has health

Table 1. Purposes of the literature review in qualitative research(Burns & Grove, 2005:95).

lype of qualitative research

Phenomenological research

Grounded theory research

Ethnographical research

Historical research

Purpose of the literature review

Compare and combine findings fromthe study with the literature todetermine eurrent knowledge of aphenomenon

Use the literature to explain, support,and extend the theory generated in thestudy

Review the literature to provide abackground for conducting the study,as in quantitative research

Literature is reviewed to developresearch questions and is a source ofdata

service delivery changed ashealth policy changed?

• How do concrete actors makesense of /respond to /accomplish the activity/policy that play a key role intheir lives? "Concreteactors " are historically andgeogi'aphically situatedpeople, organisations, andinstitutions.

Example: How do primary careworkers respond to shortagesof personnel in rural clinics?

• How is the artefact /tool/policy used by concreteactorsl "Artefacts, tools, andpolicies" are used in more orless their everyday meanings,although "tools andartefacts " should be thoughtof as encompassingtechnologies.Example: How is the primaryhealth care policyimplemented by differenthealth professions?What happens to the systemof relations when the activitytakes place?Example: What happens tothe quality of care of patientsfrom a low income status ifthey cannot access healthcare?In summary, the researchquestions clearly delineatethe research (sometimes withsub-questions), and thescope of the researchquestions(s) needs to bemanageable within the timeframe and context of the study(Bottorff, 2002:11).

Research purpose andobjectivesThe research purpose (or goal, or aim)gives a broad indication of what theresearcher wishes to achieve in theresearch. The research purpose is aconcise, clear statement of the specificgoal of the study (Bums & Grove, 2005:71). The purpose usually indicates thetype of study to be conducted, i.e.identify, describe, explain, or predict.Mouton and Marais (1994:51; alsocompare Mouton, 1996:103) presents aclassification of different types ofresearch studies to present "a moresystematic picture of different kinds of

65

Figure 1. Typology of research studies in quaiitative studies (adapted from Mouton 1996).

Type

s of

Kno

wle

dge

Descriptive(fa(:tuai)

r

Explanatory(theoreticai)

Body of Knowledge

Non-Existent

Exploratorystudies

Descriptivestudies

Well-establlshe(

Repiicationstudies

/ / Î

Hypotiiesisgeneratingstudies

/

/

1Theorytestingstudies

research objectives". However, hesuggests that there are more basicquestions to eonsider, before attentionis given to the classification, i.e. "Whatare the factors that come into playwhen a researcher identifies aparticular research purpose? Whatmakes a researcher opt for adescriptive purpose rather than anexplanatory purpose? Which factorsplay a role in detemiining a choicefor or against evaluating health careinterventions? " Mouton (1996:102)further argues that over and above thequestions, there are factors thatdetermine the clarification of theresearch purpose, such as "theresearchers' existing backgroundknowledge (epistemic dimension) ofthe particular phenomenon and theinterests, motives and preferences ofthe researcher (the sociologicaldimension) ".

The epistemic dimension focuses onexisting knowledge. Mouton (1996:102-103) differentiates between two typesof existing knowledge, i.e. descriptive(or factual) and explanatory (ortheoretical) knowledge. Descriptiveknowledge includes data, facts.

empirical generalisations, narrativesand stories, and provides truthfuldescriptions of phenomena."Descriptive statements make claimsabout how things are, and what theactual fact of the matter is " (Mouton,1996: 192). Explanatory knowledgeincludes models, theories,interpretations, and makes causalclaims about the world. "Explanatorystatements suggest plausibleexplanations of why things are as theyare, and what the causes of eventsbehind change are (Mouton, 1996:192-193). Mouton(1996:193)tui-therpointsout that the existence of a well-established body of knowledge versuslittle known about a phenomenon, willalso impact on the choice of puipose.If little or no previous research isknown about the phenomenon underinvestigation, a different kind ofresearch would be appropriate incomparison with a phenomenon forwhich there is an existence of a well-established body of knowledge. In thefirst case, the researcher will attempt tocollect new data through anexploratory study. In the latter case,new studies will possibly focus onvalidational or confirmatory studies.

The typology in figure 1 illustrates howthe types of knowledge and the non-existence or existence of a body ofknowledge will influence theresearcher's choice of study.

The second dimension discussed byMouton (1996:41-45) is the sociologicaldimension, i.e. research as socialactivity. This implies that: (i) Theresearchers are social beings withspecific beliefs, values and interests;(ii) Researchers follow certain implicitand explicit rules; (iii) The activities ofresearchers are conducted within moreor less organised and institutionalisedframeworks, which impose certainconstraints on what is acceptable; and(iv) Researchers stand in differentrelations of power to each other(Mouton, 1996:41). What is importantfor the purpose of our discussion isthat the researcher should be aware ofhis/her motives and intentions.

In summary, the research purpose islogi cally (deduced) generated fr'om theresearch problem, it identifies thepurpose of the study, and directs thedevelopment of the study (Bums &Grove 2005:80). Based on the research

purpose, specific research objectives •:•are developed to direct the study. Thefollowing is an example of the researchaim (purpose) and objectives from astudy conducted by Minnie (2007;Minnie, Klopper & Van der Walt,2008:51): "The aim of this research isto develop best practice guidelines forcounselling for HIV testing duringpregnancy. This aim is achieved bymeans of the following objectives:

• To explore and describe thefactors that influencepregnant women's decisionto be tested for HIV inselected antenatal clinics inthe North West Province;

• To explore and describe thefactors that influence thecounselling for HIV testingduring pregnancy accordingto counsellors who practicein selected antenatal clinicsin the North West Province;

' To describe the currentpractices regardingcounselling for HIV testingduring pregnancy in selectedclinics in the North WestProvince; and

• To describe the evidenceregarding counselling forHIV testing duringpregnancy by means ofsystematic review.

Research paradigmNo research is value free. "All studiesinclude assumptions about the worldand knowledge that informs theinquiries" (Creswell & Piano Clark,2007:20). It is therefore advisable thatyou include an explicit stance of yourparadigm (often referred to by authorsas a worldview) in the proposal -especially when you expect to havereviewers who are not familiar withqualitative research. AU researchersbring a paradigm(s) or worldview totheir researeh and this will influence thedesign and conducting of the research."Worldviews and paradigms mean howwe view the world and, thus, go aboutconducting research" (Creswell & PianoClark, 2007:21). Guba and Lincoln(2005:192) state that the paradigmcontains a basic set of beliefs andassumptions that guide our inquiries.Heath (1997:1-2) makes usefulsuggestions on the description of theparadigm:

; • ; Use specific language toname and describe yourresearch paradigm, e.g."naturalistic ", "post-structuralism ".

* Describe the philosophicalcorrelates of your researchparadigm, e.g.phenomenology,hermeneutics.

• Cite authors who havedefined your researchparadigm in the healthsciences and suggested itsapplication to your field ofstudy and/or your speeifiearea of study.

The message is clear - explain theassumptions of your researchparadigm. The paradigm orparadigmatic perspective includesmeta-theoretical, theoretical andmethodological assumptions. Meta-theoretieal assumptions (statements)refer to the researcher's beUefs aboutthe human being (patient, health careprofessional), society (community), thediscipline (nursing, medicine,physiotherapy), and the purpose of thediscipline (health). These assumptionsare often embedded in paradigms orworldviews, i.e. Positivism,Postpositivism, Critical Theory, andConstructivism. Meta-theoreticalstatements are axiomatic statements andare not meant to be tested. Thefollowing excerpt is an example of aparadigmatic statement from a study byMaphorisa, Poggenpoel and Myburgh(2002:23): "The researcher willincorporate the Theory for HealthPromotion in Nursing (RÄU, 1999) asparadigmatic perspective for thisresearch. It endorses a Christianperspective. The following parametersof Nursing are also identified:community mental health nurse,mental health, environment andmental health nursing ". The authorsthen eontinue to provide clarificationsof the four listed parameters bydefining them from a faith perspective.

Theoretical assumptions or statementsare a refleetion of the reseaicher's viewof valid knowledge in existingtheoretical or conceptual frameworks.The theoretieal statements areepistemic in nature and are subjeet totesting with the intention of clarifying

67

the research problem. Theoretiealassumptions are theoretical statementsthat serve as a framework in the study,and include theories, models andeoncepts (theoretical and operationaldefinitions).

To demonstrate the differentapproaehes in qualitative studies, twoexamples are given. In the firet examplethe researeher approaches the researchfield with no preconceived framework;and in second example, definitions areprovided, i.e. the researcher isdeparting from a specific framework.Example one comes from a studyconducted by Maphorisa et al.(2002:25): "A literature control will beconducted after thephenomenological interviews havebeen analysed; thus the researcherwill approach the field with nopreconceivedß-amework of reference. "The second example is fi:om a studyconductedbyMinnaar(2001:20): "Theframework that was used for this studywas the Caring Theory of Watson.Watson (1985) identified ten curative

factors which encourage health anddevelopment of individuals, familiesand communities. The ten carativefactors are the formation of a human-altruistic system of values; theinstallation of hope and faith; thecultivation of sensitivity to oneself andto others; the development of ahelping-trust relationship between thecaregiver and the care receiver toensure a relationship of quality; thepromotion and acceptance of theexpression of positive and negativefeelings ".

Methodological assumptions orstatements explain what the researeherbelieves good science practice is andmay be implied or explicitly stated. Anexample firom a study in. which themethodological assumptions are statedexplicitly is given below (Maphorisa etal 2002:23): "The methodologicalassumptions, which will guide thisstudy, are in line with the Botes Modelof Research (1998). The assumptionsare based on the functional approachthat implies that research must beapplicable to improve the practice.The usefulness of the research in itselfprovides its trustworthiness. "

Research designResearch starts with a problem and is a

Table 2. Typology of research designs (adapted from Mouton and Marais 1996)

Research strategy

GENERAL INTEREST(Universal or Nomothedc)

CONTEXTUALINTEREST(Contextual or ideographic)

Research goal

Explanatory

Descdptive

Exploratory

Explanatory(Verstehen)

Descdpdvc

Exploratory

Collection of new data

ExpedmentalandQuasi-experimental designs

Survey designs(Quesdonnaires, interviewsand indirect observation)

Survey designs(Pilot studies)

Grounded theoryTheory development

Field designs orEthnographie designs (withthe focus on unstructureddirect and indirectobservadons)E.g. Case studyModel developmentNan'ative InquiryCddcal ethnography

Field designs orEthnographic designs (withthe emphasis on the use ofinformants)E.g. AutoethnographyEthnography

Analysis of existing data

Secondary analysis(Census data)Quantitative content analysis(Newspaper reports.speeches, etc)

Qualitative content analysis

Discourse analysisHistorical analysis(What was the cause of X?)

Qualitative content analysisDiscourse analysisHistodcal analysis(What happened?)

precondition for any study. Thedevelopment of a research designfollows logically from the researchproblem. This implies that the researchproblem directs the choice of design.A research design is defined as "a setof guidelines and instructions to befollowed in addressing the researchproblem" (Mouton, 1996:107). Moutonfiarther suggests that the main functionof a research design is to enable theresearcher to anticipate what theappropriate research decisions shouldbe in such a manner that the eventualvahdity of the research fmdings aremaximised. The research design is theplan or blueprint that the researcher willuse in conducdng the research. Theaim of the research design is to alignthe pursuit of a research goal with the

pracdcal consideradons and limitationsof the project (Mouton & Marais,1994:32). The following componentsare usually addressed in the design: itsqualitative or quandtadve (or mixed)nature; whether the study isexplorative, descdpdve, conqiarativc orexplanatory; and whether the study iscontextual or universal. QualitativeStudies are always contextual, as thedata is only valid in a specific context.The researcher can then follow with ashort description of each component.In the descdption of a contextual studyit is important to include a descriptionof the context or setting in which theresearch will be conducted. Alsoexplain why this setting was chosen.Mouton and Marais (1994:51) providea t3^ology of research designs which.

although not exhausdvc, may be usedas a guide (refer to Table 2).

The following is an example of aresearch design (Maphorisa et al2002:24): "The design of this study isqualitative, explorative, descriptiveand contextual in nature. Itsqualitativeness offers the opportunityto uncover the nature ofthe communitymental health nurses' actions,experiences and perspectives of whichis little known as yet. The purpose ofits exploration is to gain a richerunderstanding of the experiences.According to Burns and Grove (2001),a descriptive study is usuallyconducted when little is Imown aboutthe phenomenon of interest. Mouton(1996) describes a contextual .study

as one in which the phenomenonunder investigation is studied in termsof its intrinsic and immediatecontextual significance. "

Research methodThe researcb design will influence yourdecisions about researcb metbods.Researcbers give differentinterpretations as to what the researchmetbod refers to. In this article researchmetbod includes the steps of

1 population and sample, data collection,\ ensuring rigor and data analysis. Eacb' of the steps will be discussed.j • Population and samplei "Population refers to all the elements

(individuals, objects or substances)that meet certain criteria for inclusionin a given universe " (Bums & Grove,2005:40). They further indicate that thedefinition of tbe population dependson the sample criteria and tbe similarityof participants in tbe various settings.Describe the composition of thepopulation (N) in your study. Explainhow you will select participants andgain entry into the researcb context (ifrelevant) (Heatb, 1997). Then continuewitb a description of the sample, andsampling technique. A sample is asubset of the population that isselected for a particular study. Nametbe sampling technique you will useand defend its use, for examplemotivate why you would usepurposive sampling. State theinclusion and exclusion criteria, andlastly project the size ofthe sample (n).An example from a study by Mcbunuand Gwele (2005: 33) is given: "Thepopulation consisted of communityhealth centres, health professionals inthese centres, and the surroundingcommunities, in the differentcommunity settings in the Ethelcwenihealth district".

• Data collectionTbe researcher describes what he/sheis aiming to find out and bow the datawill be collected. Tbe process ofdescription will depend on tberesearcher's use of an inductive ordeductive strategy, as tbis willinfluence the decision of whether thequalitative research will be carried outdeparting from atbeoretical frameworkor not. Witb an inductive strategy theresearcber would embark upon theproject without working from an explicit

conceptual framework, and merely usea central theoretical statement to guidethe research. In the deductive strategythe researcher embarks upon a researchproject witb a clear conceptualframework in mind. Tbis may be amodel, a theory, or a typology. Theuse of a deductive strategy leads to arelatively rigid manner ofconceptualisation, operationalisation,and data collection, and will ultimatelyconstitute the frame of reference foranalysis and interpretation (alsocompare Mouton, 1996:80).

It is important that the researcherdescribes tbe kind of data tbat will becollected, e.g. examination of existingdocuments, field notes, audiotapes,focus groups, videos, intemet-baseddata, etc); and bow data will becollected e.g. interviews, discourseanalysis, etc. The method must bedescribed in detail, as it will becomepart of tbe audit trail (Heath, 1997:2).Agar(1980,inMorse& Field, 1996:42)notes that it is inadequate to simplyrefer to data tbat will be collected using"participant observation, field notesor diaries ". A description with thejustification of eacb method and howthe metbod contributes to tbeunderstanding of the phenomenonunder study must be presented. If aninterview guide will be used, includetbe questions in tbe proposal or attacbas an appendix. Explain in detail bowinterviews will be conducted, i.e.include how focus groups will beconducted, inclusive ofthe role ofthefacilitator and moderator, and howresponses to questions will be elicited(Sandelowsld, 2002:17). An examplefrom Morolong and Chabeli (2005:42)is given: "Observation andquestioning were preferable datacollection methods. For the mainstudy, the researcher was assisted byan experienced expert clinicalaccompanist who was purposivelyselected for data collection. Theresearcher and the assistant used thedeveloped instrument and its relatedmanual, to evaluate the competenceof newly qualified registered nurses ".

* Rigor (Soundness of theresearch)

Rigor must be reflected throughout theproposal. However, it is vital that theresearcher addresses rigor specifically,using relevant criteria and appropriate

69Curationis December 2008

Strategies for the qualitative designused. Lincoln and Guba (1985:218)propose an alternative construct forvalidity and reliability in qualitativeresearcb, namely trustwortbiness. Tbeepistemological standards oftrustwortbiness are:(i) Thith valueTruth value determines whether theresearcher has establisbed confidencein the truth of the findings with theparticipants and the context in whichthe research was undertaken. Truthvalue is usually obtained from thediscoveiy of human experiences asthey are lived and perceived by theparticipants (Klopper & Knobloch,2OO8a:5, Sliep, Poggenpoel & Gmeiner,2001:69). Tyuth value is obtained byusing the strategy of credibility andtbe criteria of prolonged engagement,triangulation (of methods, data sources,theories and investigators), peer-examination/group discussion,negative case analysis and memberchecking.

(ii) ApplicabilityApplicability refers to the degree towhicb tbe findings can be applied todifferent contexts and groups (Sliep etal. 2001:69). It is the ability to generalisefr-om the findings to larger populations,by using the strategy of transferability(Klopper & Knobloch, 2008a:8).(iii) ConsistencyConsistency considers whether thefmdings will be consistent if the inquirywas replicated with the sameparticipants and in a similar context.Since the qualitative setting may becomplicated by extraneous and anunexpected variable, the strategy ofdependability is used, which impliestraceable variability; this is variabiHtytbat can be ascribed to identifiablesources (Sliep et al. 2001:69-70). Toensure consistency Guba and Lincoln(1985:298-299) discuss direct andindirect ways with which thedependability of research fmdings maybe ensured. Dependability may beensured in an indirect way by applyingtbe measures of credibility. Tbe tbreedirect ways that the dependability ofresearch findings may be ensured are:stepwise replication (inclusive of athick or dense description of themethodology), inquiry audit(sometimes referred to as tbedependability audit) and triangulation(iGopperA Knobloch, 2008a: 10).Çv) Neutrality

Table 3. Summary of standards, strategies and criteria to ensure trustworthiness

Epistemological standards

Truth value

Applicability

Consistency

Strategies

Credibility

Transferability

Dependability

Confirmability

Criteria

• Prolonged engagement• Triangulation

• Methods• Participants

• Peer examination/group discussion• Negative case analysis• Member checldng

• Selection of sources• Saturation of Data• Thick Description

• Indirect• Measures of credibility

• Direct* Stepwise replication• Inquiry audit• Triangulation

• Methods• Participants

• Confiiinability audit

• Triangulation

• Methods

• Participants

Neutrality entails freedom from biasduring the research process and resultsdescription, and refers to the degree towhich the findings are a function solelyof the informants and conditions of theresearch, and not of other biases,motives or perspectives (Sliep et al.2001:70). The strategy ofconfirmability is used, and the criteriaof the confirmability audit andtriangulation are applied (Klopper &Knobloch, 2008a: 12).The term trustworthiness is thereforeused in the evaluation of the rigor ofqualitative data. Table 3 provides asummary of the epistemologicalstandards, the strategies and criteriaused to ensure trustworthiness inqualitative research.

* Data analysisDescribe the intended data analysisprocedure (coding, sorting, etc.). The

researcher needs to give a descriptionof how data reduction and datareconstruction is planned, as well ashow data will be kept organised andretrievable. In explaining datareduction the reseai'cher provides detailof write-ups of field notes, transcriptionprocedures and the use of computerprogrammes (if planned) (Heath,1997:3). Data reconstruction includesa description of the development ofthemes, control with existing literatureand integration of concepts (Heath,1997:3). For the description of dataanalysis, relevant methods withcitations must be included, e.g. contentanalysis (Tesch, 1990 in Creswell1994:155); qualitative content analysis(Altheide, 1987:65-67); constantcomparison analysis (Strauss andCorbin 1990:62); . andphenomenological thematic analysis(Van Maanen, 1990:3) (compare

Sandelowslci, 2002; Sandelowski &Barroso, 2003). The use of computerprogrammes to conduct data analysis,i.e. Atlas ti or Nvivo 8 should also beclearly indicated. The study ofMaphorisa et al. (2002:24) is used asexample:"The method of data analysis of Teschin Creswell (1994) was used to analysethe tape recorded data aftertranscription. During the dataanalysis, all the transcriptions wereread to get a sense of the whole. Ideaswere Jotted in the margin as they cameto mind. A list of all topics from all theinterviews was made and similartopics were clustered together. Thesetopics were formed into major topics,unique topics and leftovers. They werelater taken and returned to the dataand abbreviated as codes. Thesecodes were written next to theappropriate segments of the text.. ".

70

ll '

Ethicai considerationsQualitative research introduces spécialmoral and ethical problems that are notusually encountered by otherresearchers during data collection;perhaps due to the unstructuredconversational tone of interviews andthe intimate nature of the interactionbetween the researcher andparticipants (Morse & Field, 1996:44).It is therefore very important that theresearcher take special care in ensuringthat ethical standards are met. Ethicalconsiderations refer to the protectionof the participants' rights, obtaininginformed consent and the institutionalreview process (ethical approval). Theresearcher needs to provide adequateinformation on each of these aspects. •Protection of participants' rightsinclude the right to self-determination,right to privacy, right to autonomy andconfidentiality, right to fair treatmentand the right to protection fromdiscomfort and harm. Informed consentneeds to be obtained from theparticipants, as well as the research siteand the relevant authorities.

Dissemination pianThe researcher should provide acondensed description of the plan thatwiU be utilised to disseminate results,i.e. publication in peer-reviewedjournals and paper or posterpresentations at conferences. Alsotake into consideration specificrequirements for dissemination forpostgraduate studies, or fundingagencies.

TimelineThe timeline is a schedule or work planfor the completion of the research(Morse & Field, 1996:42-43). The planincludes all the research activities tobe completed, the predicted length oftime that each activity will take tocomplete and when it will be performed.The plan can be described as text, butas several tasks may be conductedconcurrently, it is often presented as atable or graph. A possibility is the useof the Gantt chart. A Gantt chart is astandard tool that can be used by theresearcher to structure the timeline ofthe project, i.e. specific activities withtarget dates. Qualitative researchersare often very optimistic about the timeto be allowed for the research activities,but the qualitative researcher canexperience numerous delays, for

instance; delays with interviews andthe time-consuming process ofqualitative data analysis. Morse andField (1996:43) advise that theresearcher should estimate how longeach activity will take and then triplethe time. Such leeway is importantwhen funds are requested, to ensurethat there is adequate ftinding for staffand for the completion of the project.

BudgetA notion which interferes with thepositive perception of qualitativeinquiry is the idea that qualitativeresearch is inexpensive to conduct(Morse, 2003:847). This is a myth.Qualitative research is not predictable;hence when the researcher prepares aresearch budget, he/she should predictand cost all aspects of the research,and then add an additional allowancefor unpredictable disasters, delays andrising costs. Morse and Field (1996:43)refer to specific aspects that should beincluded in the budget: the number ofparticipations cannot be predicted,because data will be collected untilsaturation, but an estimation must beincluded; recording of data(audiotapes, recorder, batteries,microphone); transcripts of interviews(on average, a fast typist will need threehours to transcribe a clearly recorded45-minute interview); equipment (make,model number and actual price);personnel budget (include employeebenefits); supplies (telephone,stationary); travel; cost of attending aconference for dissemination. All itemsin the budget should be justified.

AppendicesAppendices are documents thatsupport the proposal and application.The appendices will be specific for eachproposal, but documents that areusually required include; informedconsent form; telephone consent;verification of ethical approval; lettersof approval from research site; lettersof support (in case of fundingapplication); curricula vitae ofresearcher (principal investigator) andothers members of the research team.

ConclusionIn summary, successful qualitativeresearch proposals shouldcommunicate the researcher'slcnowledge of the field and method, and

convey the emergent nature of thequalitative design. The proposalshould follow a discemible logic fromthe introduction to presentation of theappendices. Successful qualitativeresearch proposals are an art andscience (Sandelowski, 2002:20) andshould be written to entice the audienceand to conform to the requirements ofthe funding agency (Morse & Field,1996:141-142).

AcknowledgementThanks to Siedine Knobloch (projectmanager in my ofiBce) for the final proofreading and assistance with theabstract.

ReferencesAGAR, MH 1980: The ProfessionalStranger: An Informal Introduction toEthnography. New York: AcademicPress

ALTHEIDE,DL1987: Ethnographiccontent analysis. Qualitative Sociology,10:65-67.

ARBER, S 1993: The ResearchProcess. (In: Gilbert, N. Researching

. Social Life). London: Sage.

BELGRAVE, LL& SMITH, KJ 1995:Negotiated validity in eollaborativeethnography. Qualitative Inquiry. 1:69-

BOTTORFF, JL 2002: WritingQualitative Research Proposals.Retrieved 17 May 2004 fromwww.vchri.ca/i/ presentations/qualitative proposals.

BURNARD, P 2004: Writing aqualitative research report NurseEducation Today. 24 (3): 174-179

BURNS, N & GROVE, SK 2005: ThePractice of Nursing Research. Conduct,Critique and Utilization. London:Elsevier Saunders Company

CRESWELL, J 1994: Researchdesign: Qualitative and quantitativeapproaches. London: Sage

CRESWELL, JW & PLANO CLARK,VL, 2007: Designing and conductingMixed Method Research. USA: SagePublications

DENZBV, NK& LINCOLN, YS1998:

71

"StráTegies of Qualitative Inquiry.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

, AW 1997: The proposal inQualitative Researeh. The QualitativeReport. 3 (1). Retrieved on 17 May 2004from www.nova.edu/sss.s/OR/OR3-l/heath.html.

HIGSON-SMITH, C; PARLE, J;LANGE, L & TOTHILL, A 2000:Writing your research proposal. Aworkbook for first time andinexperienced researchers in the SocialSeienees and Humanities. NRF: SouthAfrica; online from http://www.nrf.ac.za/methods/proDOsals.htm

JONES, R 1995: Editorials: Why doqualitative research? British MedicalJoumal. Volume 311:2(1 My).

IŒOPPER, HC 1995: Vertrouenswaar-dighei dstrategieë (TrustworthinessStrategies') RAUCUR. 1 (1): 25-28

KLOPPER, HC & KNOBLOCH, S2008: Validity, reliability, andtrustworthiness (Submittedmanuscript) pp. 1-18

KNOBLOCH, S & KLOPPER, HC.2008: Compassion fatigue within thenursing practice: A concept analysis(Submitted for publication).

LINCOLN, YS & GUBA, EG 1985:Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage

LOISELLE, CG, PROFETTO-MCGRATH, J, POLIT, DF & BECK,CT 2004: Canadian Essentials ofNursing Research. Philadelphia, USA:Lippincott Williams & Willdns

MALTERUD, K 2001: Qualitativeresearch: standards, challenges andguidelines LfflîseL 358 (928): 483-489

MANNING^ K 1997: Authenticity inconstnictivist inquiry: Methodologicalconsiderations without prescriptions.Qualitative Inquiry. 3:93-115.

MAPHORISA, MK, POGGENPOEL,M & MYBURGH, CPH 2002:Community mental health nurses'experience of decentralized andintegrated psychiatric-mental healthcare services in the Southern mental

health region of Botswana. Curationis. -25 (2): 22-29(•-- • '.*%.-i-i™,*,, , , _ . . . (

MAYS, N & POPE, C 2000: Quality inqualitative health research, London:BMJ

MCHUNU, GG & GWELE,NS 2005:The meaning of communityinvolvement in health: the perspectiveof primary health care communities.Curationis. 28 (2): 38-50.

MINNAAR, A 2001: Caring for thecaregivers - a nursing managementperspective, Curationis. 24 (3): 19-26

MINNIE, CS 2007: Best PracticeGuidelines for Counselling for HIVtesting during pregnancy. (PhDThesis). Potehefstroom: North-WestUniversity

MINNIE, K, KLOPPER, HC & VANDER WALT, SJC 2008: Faetorscontributing to the decision bypregnant women to be tested for HTV.Health SA Gesondheid. 13 (4): 50-65

MOROLONG,BG& CHABEUMM2005: Competence of newly qualifiedregistered nurses from a nursingcollege. Curationis. 28 (2): 38-50.

MORSE, JM 1994: Designing fundedqualitative researeh. (In: Denzin, N&Lincoln, YS (Eds) Handbook ofQualitative research). Thousand Qaks,CA:Sage

MORSE, JM, HUPCEY,J, PENROD,JA, SPIERS, J, POOLER C &MITCHAM, C 2002: Issues of validity:Behavioral concepts, their derivationand interpretation. InternationalJournal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (4)Article 3. Retrieved20 May 2004 fromhttp : //www.ualberta. ca/~iiqm.

MORSE, J 2003: A ReviewCommittee's Guide for EvaluatingQualitative Proposals. QualitativeHealth Researeh. 13 (6): 833-851

MOUTON, J 1996: UnderstandingSocial Researeh. Pretoria: JL Van Sehaili

MOUTON, J & MARAIS, HC 1994:Basic Concepts in the methodology ofSocial Sciences. Pretoria: HumanSciences Researeh Council

RODGEKS, BL & COWLES, ÏCV1993: The qualitative research audittrial: A complex collection ofdocumentation. Researeh in NursingandHealth.l6:219-226.

SANDELOWSKI, M 2002: TheQualitative Reseaich Proposal. U-MConference on Qualitative ResearchMethods. Retrieved 13 May 2004 fromwww.umich.edu/ ~qualnet/material/sandelowsld.

SANDELOWSKI, M & BARROSO, 32003: Writing the Proposal for aQualitative Research MethodologyProject. Qualitative Health Researeh.13 (6): 781-820

SILVERMAN, D 2000: DoingQualitative Research. A practicalhandbook. London: Sage

SLIEP, Y, POGGENPOEL, M &GMEINER, AC 2001: A carecounselling model for HIV reactivepatients in rural Malawi. Curationis, 24(3): 66-74

SMALINQ A2002: The ArgumentativeQuality of the Qualitative ResearchReport. International Journal ofQualitative Methods. 1 (3): Article 4,Retiieved 22 May 2004 from http://www.ualberta,ca~ijqm

STRAUSS, A & CORBIN, J 1990:Basics of qualitative researcí;^'Grounded theory procedure andtechniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ (http://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/lcielet/oppiaineet_kls/ englanti/research/postgrad/instructions, accessed 31July 2008):

VAN MAANEN, M1990: Researchinglived experience: Human science for anaction sensitive pedagogy, Albany:State University of New York Press

72

Copyright of Curationis is the property of DENOSA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple

sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,

download, or email articles for individual use.