As Trish said, assessing qualitative research is about using judgment not ticking boxes, so our comments the previous week were not limited using the key question framework proposed by Kuper et al. The topic of this virtual seminar was about a study, which was a cross-sectional, semi-structured interview, about domestic violence. Domestic violence is a major public health issue and this was the first study to look at the views of both service users and mental health professionals in relation to the disclosure of domestic violence.
Much of the discussion was around if the sample used in the study was appropriate to its research question or not. Some people argued that was not appropriate pointing out that the sample was very small and not representative. The researchers refer that they selected only those known to be affected by domestic violence, but what about people are ashamed to discuss about experiencing domestic violence? Some others indicate the saturation of themes and how qualitative studies can sometimes be iterative, stopping sampling when no more new themes are emerging from analysis. We conclude that they chose fewer men because the prevalence of domestic abuse is greater in females than in males. But Andreas made an interesting comment that men do not tend to come straight forward with their issues and men being hit by women seems to be outrageous in our society. Moreover, many people point out that the financial incentive effect the type of sample collected. We should not forget that the area, where the study took place, was a socioeconomically deprived borough in south London. Sandy, also, questioned the sample because about 2 of the 3 methods of recruitment involved posting adverts and putting up posters and only certain types of people respond to such adverts. In my opinion, I will add that these methods of recruitment exclude people, who do not speak the English language.
Furthermore, in a qualitative research, as this paper is, ethics should extend beyond review boards’ requirements to involve complex issues of confidentiality, reflexivity and power. Reflexivity is a very important point, because it refers to recognition of the influence a researcher brings to the research process. Does the study adequately address potential ethical issues, including reflexivity? Some argued that no mention of reflexivity was noted. As Yasin successfully mentioned they could have done more to address reflexivity. About, quality and consistency, researchers don’t actually say what this quality and consistency involved.
Overall, the study was clear and interesting enough to discuss it. I hope I covered the most important points of our discussion.
