Qualitative Research In Public Health for Continuity and Change

Question: Discuss about theQualitative Research In Public Health for Continuity and Change. Answer: Social problem. A social issue is any circumstance or mannerism harboring destructive consequences over a large number of individuals and which is in most cases identified as one that calls for immediate attention [1]. The article at this moment in question delves on the social problem of the motivation and decision-making that pushes study participants to the inclusion acceptance in the study. The research goes further to explore the records of exploitative research practices to the indigenous and non-indigenous study participants while participating in some research procedures which has posed a social problem facing past, current and prospective study participants. The research questions addressed by the study are: (a) Whether differences exist between responses of aboriginal and alien research participants, (b) What are the motivating factors to participate in any medical research by both the indigenous and non-indigenous participants, and (c) Whether non-indigenous researchers face more challenges in the field than native researcher when performing study activities on indigenous research participants? The authors connected the research questions to the social problem by doing a secondary research on a previous interviewed research participants and assessed their promptness to their study activities, attitude, and mannerism towards the incorporated activities and researchers. The respondents were divided into two groups; indigenous and non-indigenous community members, with the researchers evaluating each study participator's responses. The driving force of the research was to investigate instances of subject exploitations and approaches likely to appear exploitative. The authors also targetted respondents who had participated in a study investigating on issues ranked as sensitive,' thus their acceptance to participate involved stakes that were at least moderately high. The study concludes with a note that the needs of indigenous people should be prioritized thus making the study a community value-abiding one in its focus [2]. Paradigm adopted. Research has been assigned the description of a systematic investigation (Burns, 1997) as cited by Mackenzie [3] with a research paradigm recorded as the hypothetical fabric, explicit from the theory, and one influencing knowledge interpretation and study [3]. The authors adopted the constructivist paradigm; one where qualitative methods are applied even though quantitative methods can be utilized incorporating interviews, observations and visual data analysis as data collection tools [9]. The paradigm asserted that The reasons and motivation behind an individual response are dependent on whether he/she is an indigenous member of the community or not.' They interrogated persons who had a prior participation in research while failing to disclose the identity of the participants to their first researchers. The study interviewed 36 members from Victoria-Australia on reasons for their involvement in the previous research where a representative sample from each group was absorbed. A physi cal interview was chiefly used on the original participants with telephone interview incorporated depending on a participants availability for interview. The data collected delved on their opinion on; (a) the approach employed by the researchers towards them, (b) their attitude to the study and (c) the motivation they expected from investigators. Though the respondents produced their independent responses, high response similarity was recorded in each group. The sample population selected responded to similar questions, except for indigenous participators who tackled further filter probing. The non-indigenous population was noted to employ minimal attention to the why factors,' unlike their indigenous counterparts. Most non-indigenous participants consented inclusion with the intent of; helping others, individual interests or possessing face value trust in the recruiting medical practitioners [2]. The native participants consented to the study inclusion after careful and insightful thought on the researchers' credibility and the importance of the research to the community. The constructivist paradigm achieved its purpose by collecting study participants individual opinion that is independent of external influence. Population and the sample A study population is a group of people from whom a researcher can legitimately assign the study's conclusions on [8] with the target population being the whole team under interest. Nevertheless, this population is not always accessible, and due to numerous practicalities (funding, time, ethics), the researcher is unable to reach every individual of interest thus a proportion (sample) of it is selected for a study. The studys sample was selected from previous sensitive perceived studies participants in Australia, who were contacted via letters and later interviewed with the consent of their respective researchers. The sample contained 36 members; 24 women and 11 men, of ages between 18 and 70 years. The sample comprised of 28 non-indigenous and eight indigenous participants. Its worth noting the unfortunate situation of the study harboring only eight native participants despite the high effort put into recruitment. The authors speculated this was due to (a) indigenous people failure to identify the studys incident vitality towards their society, (b) lack of trust in the institution carrying out the study; a research university, (c) feelings of involvement burnout and (d) individual and time commitments. The study gave the report dependent on the sample even though small. Conclusively, responses recorded high consistency, exhibiting the thoughtfulness and articulateness of the respondents. The participants agreed to participate in this research mainly because they considered the act beneficial to their community. The authors concluded that the responses adequately represented the populations voice since they held the notion that views given were information-rich. Therefore, there lacked a point of invalidating the findings. Other researchers on qualitative data have highlighted various arguments on the sample size concerning the entire population. Mathematically, a small sample size is a recipe to committing type II error: where the null hypothesis is not rejected when false [8]. However, other literature backs the choice of a small but representative sample size with their explanations; cost likely to be incurred if many respondents are interviewed, e.t.c. The qualitative research, however, seeks in-depth inquiry into every social aspect thus the concept of the sample size does not bear much weight [7] Ethical Issue. In the field of research, ethics can be considered as the protection and confidentiality of interviewees. Ethics promotes cooperation and understanding between researcher and respondents thus efficient information/data sharing and acquisition. The authors upheld ethics by: Gaining the consent of prior researchers thus granting them access their participants (after which they sent invitation letters to the targeted sample), withholding participants identity (those who yielded to the research inclusion). This promoted privacy of the respondent and could serve as a motivation to give more intimate responses to this and future studies. interviewing participants for a duration of 3060 minutes and the audio-recorded interactions were to be passed for afterward transcription only with the member's permission. Letters of invitation consisted of project information and contacts for authenticity. Similar researchers have emphasized the importance of ethics in research; [6] state presence of various reason for upholding it: Norms promote the aims of the review, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize error. Measures utilized to ensure ethics were sufficiently simplified, and adequately served towards the respondents prompt information sharing and views outsourcing owing to the long responses given, and line of thoughts articulated. A high number of respondent produced negative views about some of the former researchers evidencing that the authors approach was favorable to the respondents. The research targeted people perceived as vulnerable or requiring particular ethical attention. The issues under the prior investigation were mostly private or sensitive. Having that knowledge and the response effectiveness; this shows the approach used was the most appropriate (It produced a 100% response rate; 36/36 valid responses). Findings. The authors have brought out clear discrepancies between indigenous and non-indigenous research participation. The indigenous participated in the research after considering: (a) benefits of the research to their society, (b) their safety from any involvement in risky situations due to their vulnerability and (c) among others, the researchers truthfulness, reciprocity, and reputation. However, this was contrary to the non-indigenous participants who only assessed face value of investigators' assertation. It is thus important to note that motivation and decision-making processes in indigenous and non-indigenous participants are not necessarily the same. These findings display a tendency of easier exploitation of the non-indigenous participants by opportunistic researchers. The indigenous are unlikely to suffer from such abuse. The deduction also aids future studies to invest in inserting cover letters in all their questionnaires to boost response rate and promote trust. The knowledge a s to why and how participants choose to participate is vital, especially when dealing with people who have had a record of exploitative and harmful research practices. About nearly all indigenous research participators in an urge to promote their response effectiveness, a native researcher should be sought due to a likelihood of shared understanding and expectation. In most instances unwillingness to participate may be fuelled by a respondent anger. The upset feelings can emanate from personal experiences and/or be negatively-intrigue/disturbed [4]. The presence of two distinct groups of respondents poses a significant research problem: selection bias. To tackle the selection bias, a need arises for a "pre-test sensitization" procedure to gauge personal psychology or behavior [5]. It is worth noting the role of protocol when dealing with indigenous research participants. The authors spelled out six values: Spirit and Integrity; Reciprocity; Respect; Equality; Survival and Protection ; and Responsibility. References: University of Minnesota Libraries, 2017; Social Problems: Continuity and change; What is a Social Problem? Gullemin M., Gillam L., Barnard E., Stewart P., Walker H. and Rosenthal D. (2016) Were checking them out: Indigenous and non-Indigenous research participants accounts of deciding to be involved in researchInternational Journal of Equity and Health (15:8). Mackenzie, N. M., Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2): 193-205. Edwards K. M., Haynes E. E. and Rodenhizer-Stampfli K. A., (2016). High School Youths Reactions to Participating in Mixed-Methodological Dating Violence Research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, vol. 11, 3: pp. 220-230. June 15. McCambridge J., Kypri K. and Elbourne D. (2014). Research participation effects: a skeleton in the methodological cupboard. PMC. Journal of clinical epidemiology 67(8): 845849. Resnik D. B., (2015). What is Ethics in Research Why is it Important? National Institute of Environmental health sciences; U.S. Department of health and Environmental Services. Barnett J., Vesileiou K., Thorpe S. and Young T. (2015). Justifying the adequacy of samples in qualitative interview-based studies: Differences between and within journals; Symposium: "Quality in qualitative research and enduring problematics," Qualitative Methodology Forum 27 January 2015, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Bath. Banerjee A., Chitnis U. B., Jadhay S. L., Bhawalker J. S. and Chaudhury S., (2009). Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors. Industrial Psychiatry Journal 18(2): 127131. Crouch M. and McKenzie H., (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Sage journals; Social Science Information Vol 45, Issue 4.