Qualitative Methods: Tools

for Understanding and Engaging 32

Communities

Rosemary Frasso, Shimrit Keddem

and Jesse M. Golinkoff

Abstract as intercept interviews, freelisting, walking

Understanding community needs and estab- interviews, photo elicitation interviews, pho-
lishing research priorities must occur through tovoice, and nominal group technique can
respectful and effective collaborations enhance a researcher’s ability to collaborate
between communities, local organizations, with a community and create lasting and
and researchers. Qualitative inquiry can serve effective partnerships. Each approach presents
as a bridge between researchers and commu- unique implementation, recruitment, and eth-
nities, allowing for group goal identification ical challenges, all of which will be discussed
and priority setting. Qualitative techniques can in this chapter. Since the advent of the
transform the traditional participant-researcher internet, communities are no longer necessar-
relationship into a rich partnership steered by ily defined by geographically proximate group
empowered representatives of a community. members, so this chapter will briefly discuss
These approaches can also inform program in-person, telephone, and online approaches to
planning through formative process evaluation community identification, partnership build-
and ongoing community engagement. Addi- ing, and data collection. This chapter will also
tionally, qualitative methods serve as a foun- discuss the researcher’s responsibility to the
dation for Community Based Participatory community in all phases of the research
Research (CBPR) or Action Research. Qual- process. We will address data collection,
itative data collection methods vary widely organization, and analysis, including effective
but frequently involve interviews, observa- ways to work with community members to
tions, or focus groups. Less common, but plan a dissemination strategy. Such strategies
more interactive and creative approaches, such may include traditional reports, presentations,
exhibits, or websites. Timely reporting of
research findings back to the community and
the role and value of traditional academic
dissemination approaches will also be
addressed.

R. Frasso (&)
Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
S. Keddem
J. M. Golinkoff
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 527

R. A. Cnaan and C. Milofsky (eds.), Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations in the
21st Century, Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, [Link]
528 R. Frasso et al.

32.1 Introduction table that will allow for easy comparison of the
approaches.
In the 19th and early half of the 20th century, As a group, qualitative researchers have
researchers strongly favored data that were moved away from calling those we engage in
numerical (quantitative) in nature. Social science research as “subjects,” opting for a more
mirrored the physical sciences and rested on respectful and equitable term, “participant”
positivism, which supported research conducted (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). However, some
to test theories and hypotheses but was rarely researchers argue that both terms degrade the role
exploratory. Objectivity and distance from data of those we engage and opt for a term that truly
were considered key to effective and reliable embodies the collaborative nature of this work,
inquiry. However, numbers did not always tell referring to those with whom we directly engage
the whole story. In the mid-20th century, quali- (e.g. through interviews or group activities) as
tative research, which stems from the fields of “collaborators.” The term collaborator helps
sociology, anthropology, and psychology began break down common power-related barriers
to gain attention, but tension quickly arose between interviewers and interviewees, and rec-
between quantitative and qualitative researchers ognizes that those with whom we engage are the
(Denzin and Lincoln 2011). Qualitative only experts of their lived experience; not the
researchers argued that quantitative methods researcher(s). Only together can you explore an
alone neglected the lived experience of those issue effectively. Moving forward, we will use
under study, while quantitative researchers the term “collaborator” in lieu of “subject” or
argued that qualitative methods lacked the rigor “participant.”
and distance from the researcher needed to In many research studies, the relationship
maintain objectivity. between researchers and collaborators ends when
Today, after years of debate, both quantitative data collection is complete. However, in quali-
and qualitative methods are widely accepted as tative work there is often a need to reconnect
valid methods of scientific inquiry and are com- with collaborators or community representatives
monly employed to make sense of the world. to help make sense of the data that has been
Quantitative and qualitative research approaches collected. When possible, some qualitative
are complementary and augmentative, and can be researchers employ a process called “member
used concurrently (in mixed methods studies) or checking.” Member checking is a dynamic pro-
sequentially. Qualitative approaches can be used cess wherein the research team asks the collab-
to generate hypotheses or following quantitative orators to aid in data analysis and interpretation.
data collection and analysis to explore the deeper This step allows the researcher to check in with
meaning of numerical findings (Creswell and the community to ensure that their perspectives
Clark 2011). and opinions have not been misunderstood or
Qualitative methods are important tools for misrepresented during the research process. This
academic researchers but can also be accessible step can also help solidify the
to those leading community organizations or researcher-collaborator relationship (Lincoln and
movements. That is, one does not need to be in Guba 1985; Morse and Richards 2002). Member
academe to use qualitative methods to better checking is extremely important when working
understand the needs, priorities, or challenges with vulnerable groups (e.g. victims of violence,
faced by a community. Importantly, there are people with low literacy or people who are
advantages and disadvantages to each qualitative struggling with housing instability), as it gives
data collection approach, making them appro- study collaborators a power and authority to
priate or effective in certain contexts but not in control their story before it is shared in the lit-
others. We will discuss which data collection erature or other public venues. Collaborators can
approaches are appropriate for which types of and should be allowed to redact quotes, images,
inquiry. At the end of the chapter we will share a or video footage as needed and as they deem
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 529

appropriate (Bugos et al. 2014; Israel and Hay a completely inconspicuous way and avoids any
2006; Sanjari et al. 2014). In the next section we interaction with those they are observing. For
will address qualitative data collection example, an observer may want to blend into a
approaches. space such that they act as a “fly on the wall,”
seeing activities and behaviors as if they were not
present (this is often challenging). As a partici-
32.2 Qualitative Data Collection pant observer, one gathers data while engaging,
Approaches to various degrees, with those they are observing.
In participant observation, the observer can take
32.2.1 Observation on one of three roles: (1) passive participant;
(2) participant observer; and (3) a complete
Participant observation, a method borrowed from participant observer (Bogdewic 1992; DeWalt
ethnographers, can yield important insights into et al. 1998; Jorgensen 1998).
the lived experiences of communities—insights A participant observer may want to partake in
that would be difficult to gain as an outsider or activities or group conversations with partici-
through other research methods. Observation can pants to gain understanding of a situation or so
be useful as an initial exploration of a domain or they do not bring attention to themselves by not
community and can help researchers begin to participating. Alternatively, observers may be
understand what questions to ask in interviews or called upon to engage casually, socially, or pro-
focus groups (Cohen and Crabtree 2006; Crab- fessionally with participants or stakeholders—
tree and Miller 1992; Musante and DeWalt 2010; but if discussion moves to the research topic, the
Savage 2000). Additionally, observation can observer must disclose their role and purpose.
yield important insights even when done by a Data collection in observation. Observers
member of the observed community. Observa- are charged with taking detailed and objective
tion by a community member can allow them to notes, known as field notes, about what they see
step back from an experience or setting they and hear. This can be done on a data collection
know well and gain an important or different form created specifically for the project, in a field
perspective. notebook, or on a phone, tablet, or computer.
The most critical aspect of observation is Care should be taken to choose a note taking
maintaining objectivity, that is, refraining from approach that enables the observer to blend into
assuming anything about people or behaviors the setting if that is the goal. For example, using
beyond what can actually be seen. For example, a laptop to take notes in a coffee shop full of
an observer taking notes on an adult man and students working on computers makes sense, but
woman sitting next to each other and taking care using a laptop to take notes in a rural village,
of a child should not assume the individuals are a where few community members own computers,
couple or that either adult is the guardian of that will draw unwanted attention to the observer.
child. However, some assumptions or inferences Field notes should describe the observed situa-
are safe to make, for example if an observer tion as completely and objectively as possible
witnesses a woman using a fork to spear a piece (Fig. 32.1). This is challenging when there is a
of lettuce from a bowl and place it in her mouth, lot to observe, so it is wise to plan a
the observer could assume that woman was eat- pre-observation visit to sites that are unfamiliar
ing a salad. and to create a list of observation priorities.
Observation can take multiple forms, Thinking about the busy coffee shop full of stu-
depending on the observer’s role and the nature dents, the observer, in consultation with other
or stage of the project. Generally, an observer members of the research team, may decide they
acts as either a nonparticipant observer or a want to focus on interactions between patrons
participant observer. As a nonparticipant obser- and baristas. Depending on the setting and the
ver, one gathers data (to be explained shortly) in research goal, the observer may need to engage
530 R. Frasso et al.

Fig. 32.1 Short-hand jottings taken in the field are meant to record as much detail as necessary and can be filled out
later in more formal and descriptive prose

in casual conversation or otherwise need to must decide how much they wish to disclose
interact with people in the setting (FHI 2005). about their research mission and agenda with
These interactions should be recorded in the field those they are observing. The observer must
notes (Brinkmann and Kvale 2014; Musante and strike a balance between disrupting normal
DeWalt 2010; Tolley et al. 2016). Typically, in activity in a setting and infringing on the privacy
the field, the observer records the details of the and rights of those they are observing. This
scene, the events and any interactions that occur balance begins when the observer decides if they
in shorthand “jottings.” These are later converted need to be an undercover nonparticipant observer
into more formal field notes written in prose and to gather rich and meaningful data or if they can
containing detailed descriptions and parenthetical be a known participant observer to those they
asides and commentaries (Emerson et al. 2011). observe.
Ethical considerations with observation. The researcher must have a reasonable justi-
There are important ethical issues to be consid- fication if they wish to conduct a covert non-
ered when conducting a qualitative observation. participant observation. Discussing the approach
First, and most importantly, the research team with the research team, community members,
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 531

and institutional ethics committees are important following steps: (1) define your mission (i.e.
steps in considering this decision. Ideally, when what do you need to observe?); (2) define the
an observation occurs in a public location, observer role and posture; (3) connect with
observers are discreet enough to make mean- community members, representatives, or gate-
ingful observations without disrupting the activ- keepers if needed; 4) tailor your data collection
ities or compromising the privacy of those they approach to the site; (5) create a data collection
observe (Iphofen 2016; Sanjari et al. 2014). The tool tailored to the mission of your observation;
same is true for observations carried out in less and (6) reflect and iterate upon the data collection
public settings, for example in the waiting room tool as needed (Fig. 32.1).
of an emergency department or the produce
section of the grocery store. The member of the
research team should connect with relevant 32.2.2 Interviews
gatekeepers (hospital administrators or grocery
store managers in these examples), community When we think of a traditional qualitative inter-
leaders, or other representatives, and share their view, we imagine the collaborator and the
research plan and purpose before they conduct interviewer seated at a table. The collaborator
any formal data collection activities. There is responds to well-worded questions, often
rarely justification for misleading those being reflecting on an experience and drawing from
observed in a qualitative observation, so the memory while the interviewer is following their
researcher must be prepared to respond honestly story, probing, and asking for clarification as
if someone asks them directly about their pur- needed. Often, this approach yields valuable
pose or presence in a setting (Iphofen 2016; insight that adds to an overall understanding of
Sanjari et al. 2014). Researchers should discuss an experience, but there are times when the tra-
both research ethics and etiquette before data ditional individual interview falls short of paint-
collection begins. ing a complete picture of the collaborator’s
Observation can lead to conversations with experience (Collier 1957; Harper 2002; Skinner
community members, and observers are gener- and Gormley 2016; Wang and Burris 1997;
ally advised to disclose the purpose of their Wang 1999).
presence if the conversation is related in any way For example, in work done to shed light on
to the research mission. The research team must the challenges faced by inner city families trying
have plans in place for protecting participant to shop for healthy food to feed their children, a
confidentiality in the context of field observation. research team opted to conduct “walking” or
This is generally done by avoiding detailed “tag-along” interviews with consumers while
physical descriptions of those being observed they shopped (Frasso 2015). In work done by
and omitting any names that are overheard True and colleagues (2015), exploring the expe-
(Cohen and Crabtree 2006; Iphofen 2016; Sanjari riences of veterans returning from Iraq and
et al. 2014). Depending on the nature of the Afghanistan, visual methods, namely photo
observation and the setting, it may also be elicitation and photovoice approaches were
advisable to avoid detailed descriptions such as employed (True et al. 2015). These approaches
addresses or location names (for example, when can change the dynamic of the interview and
describing an observation conducted at the Clark often yield richer data by offering the collabo-
Park Farmer’s Market in West Philadelphia, one rator different ways to prepare for and engage
might say the observation took place at an urban with the interviewer during the interview pro-
farmer’s market in one of Philadelphia’s parks). cess. Importantly, alternative interview approa-
Tips for effective observation. Preparation is ches can alter the often troubling power dynamic
critical. If you plan to conduct an observation, between researcher and collaborator. These
you should visit the site, if possible, before the approaches can bring the researcher to physical
formal observation. Be sure to follow the (e.g. walking interviews) or imaged spaces
532 R. Frasso et al.

(e.g. photo elicitation interviews) of the collab- The interview guide can vary in structure
orator. These approaches allow the collaborators based on the mission of the study and the inter-
to curate their own stories and share a viewer’s experience and comfort level. Inter-
multi-dimensional view of their communities, views generally take one of three forms:
homes, and lives. structured, unstructured, or semi-structured.
Individual interviews. Qualitative inter- Structured interviews require the interviewer to
views, or in-depth interviews, are a popular data closely follow a guide to ensure consistency in
collection approach and allow researchers an questioning approaches between collaborators.
opportunity to appreciate the lived experience of Unstructured interviews give the interviewer a
individuals, community representatives, and list of topics to discuss, but the interviewer has
those with a unique perspective on a social issue, flexibility to tailor the order and types of ques-
phenomena, or problem. Interviews are often tions they ask about each topic. Semi-structured
employed to help explain quantitative observa- interviews include specific questions but the
tions, generate hypotheses, put a face to an issue, interviewer can, and should, adapt some or all the
or empower marginalized individuals by ampli- questions for each collaborator.
fying their voices. The interviewer should establish a space to
Researchers conducting qualitative interviews create rapport with the collaborator, being
must begin by appreciating that in the context of thoughtful at all times to maintain professional
an interview, they are the student and the inter- boundaries and conscious of the nearly
viewee (collaborator) is the teacher. The collab- unavoidable power imbalance in the
orator has been selected because they possess an interviewer-collaborator relationship. The inter-
important, unique, or frontline perspective on the view should feel conversational, but not like a
topic or experience under study. The researcher’s truly reciprocal conversation. The interviewer
role is to learn everything the collaborator is must be an active listener and ask tailored
willing to share about the topic under study. follow-up questions and probe as needed. The
Data collection in interviews. When con- interviewer must remember that the collaborator
ducting an interview, the researcher engages with should be the one sharing details, facts, and
the collaborator through a series of predeter- perspectives; their job is to create an opportunity
mined interview questions, otherwise known as for that to happen. The interviewer should be
an interview guide. The use of the term “guide” doing far more listening than talking. It is
is important here, as it signifies that it is the important the interviewer is ready to be in their
gateway to conversation around the topic of listening role as it is often impossible to predict
interest, but the researcher can, and should, let where open-ended questions will lead. Impor-
the collaborator steer the conversation. However, tantly, the interviewer must be flexible and
the interview will need to, on occasion, help the responsive while keeping the conversation
interviewee remain focused on the topic under somewhat restricted to the research mission (the
exploration. The qualitative interview guide is level of flexibility depends on the type of
typically made up of questions that are interview).
open-ended, neutral, and non-leading. An The interviewer must also reflect on their own
important rule of thumb is to avoid interview training and interpersonal communication habits
questions that can be answered with a simple before they begin an interview. For example, if
“yes” or “no,” or questions that can be answered the interviewer is a clinical social worker by
with one or two words. Qualitative interview training, they can use some of those skills to
guides typically contain questions that begin with build rapport with the collaborator. However,
“tell me about a time when…” or “please explain they must be careful not to let the research
how you felt when…” or “would you please interview turn into a clinical encounter, as that is
describe…” (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). not the mission (Padgett 2017). It raises ethical
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 533

concerns as the interviewer is not likely in a There are a variety of approaches to data
position to provide therapeutic support. It is analysis to be discussed later in this chapter,
suggested that interviewers set time aside after however at this point it is important to note that
each interview to review and assess their per- verbatim transcription of an interview is far
formance in that interview. They should listen to preferable to hand-written notes. Note taking can
and reflect on the interview’s audio recording, distract both the interviewer and the collaborator.
taking note of any leading questions, the use of It is virtually impossible to take notes with the
affirmative or disapproving language, and espe- same level of detail afforded by an audio
cially their tone, as tone can be leading even in recording. Importantly, high quality recording
the presence of well-worded interview questions. equipment is more accessible than ever before;
Review and reflection is a critical step in data smartphones, laptops, and tablets often have the
collection, as it affords the interviewer an capacity to capture high quality audio files. It is
opportunity to improve their interview skills and also important to remember that audio tran-
thereby the quality of data collected. Even sea- scription can be expensive and time-consuming;
soned interviewers learn from review and something to be considered in the planning phase
reflection, as each study requires unique ques- of a study.
tioning and probing. Walking or “tag-along” interviews. Walk-
Interviews can be conducted face-to-face, ing interviews allow researchers to engage col-
over the phone, or via an online video confer- laborators while they are traversing a space or
encing platform (e.g. Skype or BlueJeans). engaging in an activity that is important to the
Generally, interviews involve one interviewer research question. Walking interviews are con-
and one collaborator. Here we will focus on sidered a hybrid of participant observation and
face-to-face interviews. The location, timing, and in-depth qualitative interviewing. This method
language (e.g. English vs. Cantonese) of the can empower the collaborator to take control
interview need to be decided upon in the plan- over how they share their space or experience
ning stage of the study, and whenever possible, with the interviewer. Walking interviews take
should reflect collaborator preferences. If inter- place with both the interviewer and collaborator
viewer safety is an issue, the research team may in transit or in action. The interviewer uses an
opt to have a second member of the team attend interview guide, but it is loosely structured and
the interviews (FHI 2005; Tolley et al. 2016). leaves room for the interviewer to use situations
Ideally, research interviews should be audio encountered along the way or actions the col-
recorded and transcribed verbatim with the col- laborator is taking as probes during the interview
laborator’s explicit permission. The resultant experience (Jones et al. 2008).
transcripts and any notes taken during the inter- While there are challenges related to privacy
view are data. If recording is not possible, or the (these conversations may take place in public
collaborator is not comfortable with being settings) and distractions that may interfere with
recorded even after being assured the transcripts audio recording (e.g. background noise, traffic, or
will be stripped of any and all identifying infor- other people), walking interviews can provide
mation, the researcher should consider their valuable data, as they eliminate some of the
alternatives: conducting the interview and taking challenges associated with recall bias. Recording
as many notes as possible during and after the devices like lapel microphones and lanyards can
meeting, or not going forward with the interview. improve the quality of the interview recording
The interviewer should not pressure the collab- (Fig. 32.2). Walking interviews have been used
orator to consent to participation or audio in health research to explore important dynamic
recording, and should remind the collaborator experiences including food access (Chrisinger
that participation is completely voluntary if they 2016; Frasso 2014, 2015), living with a mobility
seem at all reluctant. impairment (Butler and Derrett 2014), and the
534 R. Frasso et al.

Fig. 32.2 Lapel and lanyard microphones allow the are distracted by holding recording devices, the devices
interviewers to keep their hand free during walk-along are less conspicuous and tend to “disappear” into the
interviews. Since neither the collaborator nor interviewer background

pedestrian experience in urban settings (Miaux main benefits: (1) taking or selecting pho-
et al. 2010). tographs in preparation for the interview helps
Photo elicitation, photovoice, and Point of prime and prepare the collaborator to have a rich
View interviews. Photo elicitation, photovoice conversation; (2) having photographs as a focal
and Point of View (PoV) interviews are all visual point during the interview alleviates some of the
methods used to enhance the interview experi- awkwardness that is common when two strangers
ence and dissemination opportunities. Visual sit down to discuss something important and
methods are increasing in popularity, especially often personal; and (3) the resultant photos, with
in the developed world, where access to phones the collaborator’s permission, can serve as an
with cameras is nearly ubiquitous. important addition to traditional dissemination
We will begin with a discussion of photo formats and strategies. For example,
elicitation, described first in 1957 by John Col- participant-generated images have been shared
lier. Briefly, in photo elicitation, the researcher with participant quotes in online or traditional
uses images to guide a research interview. The exhibits, embedded in reports to stakeholders,
images can be preexisting (e.g. from a family and used in academic articles. Here we share
album or newspaper) or generated for the pur- quotations and images generated from a project
pose of the study. Commonly, when the latter is that explored a college community’s perceptions
employed, the researcher asks the collaborator to of pressure and another that explored the impact
think about the experience or topic under study of gentrification on a community (Fig. 32.3).
over the course of a set period of time (e.g. one Collier compared photo elicitation interviews
week). The collaborator is instructed to take with traditional interviews and noted that photo
pictures when they see something that makes elicitation led to longer and more comprehensive
them think of or face the issue under study, or responses to interview questions and that the
when they think an image will help them explain images kept the collaborator and interviewer
the experience or feeling in question (Harper engaged over the course of the interview (1957).
2002). After the allotted time has passed, the Collier explained that the use of photos prevents
interviewer and collaborator meet to discuss the repetition associated with conventional inter-
photos taken. The photos become the anchor for views, and the data (i.e. transcripts of interviews)
the research interview. This approach has three obtained with photographs “was precise and at
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 535

Fig. 32.3 Excerpts from transcripts can be shared with facilitate the conversation between the researcher and
collaborator-generated photos that were used to guide the collaborator they can be used to engage the audience with
interview in publications or exhibits. The photos not only the study findings

times even encyclopedic; the control interviews can ask the participant to choose a photo to begin
were less structured, rambling, and freer in the interview, then following the mnemonic
association” (1957). While images can be treated SHOWeD, they ask the following (or variations
and analyzed as data in photo elicitation and of the following) questions: (1) What do you See
photovoice studies, it is far more common just to here? (2) What’s really Happening here?
use the images as tools to facilitate conversation (3) How does this relate to Our lives? (4) Why
and enrich dissemination. does this situation Exist? (5) What can we
Visual methods often lead to the use of ima- Do about it?
ges in the dissemination phase of a study. Images Photovoice, first described in 1997, is a form
become part of exhibits, online content, stake- of community-based or participatory action
holder reports, and can be embedded in tradi- research that empowers collaborators to be social
tional research articles (Bugos et al. 2014; change agents. In photovoice projects, the col-
Catalani and Minkler 2010; Frasso 2016; True laborator’s role goes beyond the provision of
et al. 2015; Wang 1999). Many collaborators data or member checking. In photovoice, the
have noted that knowing the images they shared collaborators are often involved in the analysis,
with the research team will be used to help share summarization, and dissemination of the project.
their story is rewarding (Bugos et al. 2014). While the terms are often used interchangeably,
When employing photo elicitation, many the term photovoice is generally reserved for
researchers use, or adapt, the SHOWeD inter- projects that employ photo elicitation but ask the
view questions developed by Wang et al. in collaborators to stay engaged beyond the data
2004. On the day of the interview, the researcher collection phase.
536 R. Frasso et al.

In Philadelphia, Dr. Jennifer True and col- focus group guide or a survey. Additionally,
leagues conducted a photovoice project with freelisting can be used to assess community pri-
veterans who then helped curate a traveling orities or goals and can be used to compare and
exhibit of their photos paired with excerpts from contrast priorities or understandings held by
their interviews and participated in speaking unique sets of stakeholders (“Freelisting,” 2016;
engagements (“From War To Home,” n.d.). Lincoln and Guba 1985; Weller and Romney
Additionally, Dr. Marianna Chilton and col- 1988). Freelisting has been used to explore the
leagues employed this approach in work con- experience of loneliness in older adults (Barg
ducted to explore the challenges faced by et al. 2006), to explore barriers to safe teen
families trying to feed their children in driving (Barg et al. 2009) and to explore shared
Philadelphia. Her work, entitled “Witnesses to decision making in the context of ADHD (Fiks
Hunger,” is a moving and powerful exploration et al. 2011). Keddem et al. (2015) used freelisting
of this experience. Collaborators shared their to examine the experiences of people with
stories through photos and traveled with the asthma in an urban community in order to create
resultant exhibit to Washington, DC and other maps of community-level factors affecting
locations (“Witnesses to Hunger,” 2011). Online asthma control. Unlike traditional interviews or
exhibits of the aforementioned work can be focus group approaches, freelist interviewers
found at [Link]/fromwartohome and www. require little training or experience to collect
[Link]/our- data.
projects/witnesses-hunger, respectfully. Data collection in freelisting. The first step in
Point of View (PoV) interviewing is also freelisting data collection is determining whose
an elicitation technique that relies on video perspective to explore and where and how you
recording. This approach, like photo elicitation, can connect and engage that group. Freelisting
will likely become more common as most smart interviews can be scheduled like traditional
phones have video functionality. PoV interviews interviews or focus groups, but also work well as
rest on the idea that the researcher or the col- an intercept interview approach. A researcher can
laborator will record a first person perspective on invite collaborators to respond to freelisting
an issue or experience. For example, a PoV questions on the spot, for example on the main
collaborator might be asked to wear a “go-pro” green of a busy campus or in the lobby of an
camera or digital video glasses for a period of emergency room. Data collection takes between
time. Like photo elicitation, PoV does not rely as three and 15 minutes depending on the number
heavily on the collaborator’s memory and it can of questions being asked. The researcher can
allow the collaborator to make “visible the audio record the responses, write them down, or
unverbalizable” (Skinner and Gormley 2016). ask the collaborator to write them down. If there
Freelisting interviews. Freelisting is an effi- are no literacy barriers and the topic is sensitive
cient and effective interview approach that or private, the collaborator may feel more com-
involves asking a collaborator to generate a list fortable writing themselves. Freelisting can also
of words or terms in response to a question. For be adapted for online data collection.
example, one could ask a collaborator to “list all Freelisting is an important tool when trying to
the words that come to mind when you think ensure that researchers and communities are on
about your health” or “list all the words that the same page. For example, if a researcher
come to mind when you think about helping your wanted to understand how students define or
community.” experience academic or social pressure, freelist-
Freelisting allows researchers to explore ing could help shed light on the lexicon
common understandings of a domain in a par- employed. The researcher would begin with a
ticular context or setting in a short amount of brief explanation to the collaborator, stating the
time. It can be done sequentially or prior to more purpose of the interview and obtain consent. The
in-depth data collection approaches to inform a researcher might begin with questions like
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 537

“Please list all the words that come to mind when Ethical considerations for interviews. When
you think about pressure?” or “List all the things done well, in-depth interviews can be rewarding
that students do to cope with pressure?” for both the interviewer and collaborator. Col-
Freelisting collaborators do not always give laborators often appreciate the opportunity to be
one-word responses, in fact, despite instructions heard, and are happy to share their experience,
to do so, they often share phrases or sentences. perspective, and recommendations with
These types of responses can still be used in the researchers, community leaders, and those with
analysis. After data collection is complete, the the capacity to help communities move towards
research team must meet to “clean” the data; they change. However, a qualitative interview is not
need to review all the lists in order to standardize risk free. Often researchers explore experiences
word forms and combine synonyms. For exam- that are painful or difficult for collaborators to
ple, “stressed” and “stress” would be collapsed recant, and, as in all research, care must be taken
into one term and phrases such as “Blue Cross” to ensure that the risks associated with partici-
and “private insurance” would be collapsed into pation do not outweigh the benefits of what can
one term: “insurance” (Borgatti 1999). be done with the information that is learned.
After freelisting data are cleaned, the resultant Additionally, the interviewer has the respon-
lists are formatted and imported into Anthropac sibility of handling, sharing, and disseminating
(Analytic Technologies, Kentucky), a free soft- what is learned from the interview in a way that
ware program that facilitates freelisting analysis. respects the collaborator’s privacy and the sac-
Anthropac is used to calculate frequency, rank, rifice they made (their time at best) or the
and a salience score (Smith’s S) for each term retraumatization (at worst) associated with telling
provided by respondents (Borgatti 1996). Sal- their story (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). The
ience characterizes terms that are representative, qualitative interview often affords the researcher
or prototypes of a particular domain of interest, a very personal view into the lives of collabora-
accounting for both the frequency (i.e. the tors, and with this insight comes an important set
number of times a word comes up across all of responsibilities. First, the research team must
respondents) and rank (i.e. the order the word have a plan in place to seek explicit collaborator
appears on each person’s list) (Borgatti 1999; consent and address issues related to confiden-
Winkielman et al. 2006). Importantly, rank and tiality early in the study design as this can dictate
frequency are related in freelisting data. In 1950, data collection choices. Second, the researchers
Bousfied and Barclay documented that the must enter the relationship with a clear and
number of times an item is listed across respon- transparent agenda. Finally, the research team
dents is correlated to where the term ranks and must be thoughtful and prepare for possible
how important the term is to “daily life” (Bous- retraumatization secondary to sharing an
field and Barclay 1950). In summary, more emotionally-laden experience.
salient terms appear at the beginning of individ- Before data collection begins the research
ual lists, and in higher frequency across all team must create a data storage and utilization
respondents’ lists than less salient terms. plan that addresses the explicit use of verbatim
In order to interpret the salience scores asso- quotations or, in the case of visual methods, the
ciated with each item on the list, it is helpful to use of images shared by collaborators. If appro-
visualize salience in descending order using a priate, the study should be reviewed and
scree plot. A scree plot is a graph that displays an approved by community representatives and
index value in descending order in relation to its associated Institutional Review Boards (Kvale
rank order. Typically, a scree plot has a steep and Brinkmann 2009; Morse and Richards
curve. Displaying freelisting data in this way 2002). The research team must become familiar
helps to elucidate the items that are most salient with their host institutions’ ethical processes and
(Fig. 32.4). be thoughtful when collaborating across entities
538 R. Frasso et al.

Fig. 32.4 In their study of West Philadelphia residents, make their asthma act up. The graph above displays the
Keddem et al. (2015) interviewed people with asthma. results in a scree plot showing salient responses. The most
Collaborators’ responses were used to inform maps of salient response was “dirt/dust.” In this case, there were
neighborhood-level factors affecting asthma control. At two other tiers of salient responses, “weather, animals,
the beginning of the interview, collaborators were asked pollen” and “foods, emotions, and scents/smells.”
to make a list of all the things they could think of that

(including schools, prisons, non-profit organiza- Tips for conducting effective interviews.
tions, and hospital or government agencies) that Developing an effective interview guide and
might have their own set of rules that govern asking good questions is often be the most
research and quality improvement projects. challenging part of qualitative interviews. When
Both walking interviews and visual approa- starting an interview, warm up with a little con-
ches present unique ethical challenges. For versation—a friendly greeting and explanation of
example, walking interviews often bring data the project. Establish your “cultural ignorance,”
collection into the public sphere where bystan- after all, you are the learner. Consider reminding
ders can see a collaborator while they are par- the collaborator that they are the expert and that
taking in a study. The use of collaborator- is why you want to speak with them about the
generated photographs or videos in public exhi- topic under study. Always listen closely and
bits or journal articles can also lead to confi- express interest in what the collaborator tells you.
dentiality challenges, as images of spaces, places, Remember, the interview is a conversation, not a
possessions, and people have the potential to lead strict question and answer exchange. While it can
to public identification of interviewees. Collab- be extremely difficult, try to remain neutral; don’t
orators must be told in advance that these approve or disapprove of the collaborator’s
approaches may make it impossible to keep their responses, rather encourage the collaborator to
participation in a study private. In the case of give as many details as possible. Let the collab-
photo elicitation, collaborators should be given orator’s answers determine the direction of the
an opportunity to approve or disapprove use of interview (keeping with the topics of interest).
images beyond the interview phase of a study As much as is possible, allow people to answer in
(Bugos et al. 2014; Catalani and Minkler 2010; their own terms, voicing their own views, values,
Wang 1999). priorities, goals, and experiences. Leading
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 539

questions tend to suggest a particular answer or people together at the same time in a place that is
imply that one answer is expected or more cor- conducive to group conversation can be tricky.
rect, which does not allow for the full breadth of Additionally, you need at least two individuals
potential collaborator responses. from the research team to conduct a focus group:
It takes experience, patience, and skill to a moderator and a note taker/recording techni-
probe productively. But it is extremely useful for cian. The focus group moderator needs to be a
stimulating further discussion around a topic and capable interviewer and skilled in managing
to engage the collaborator so they share more group conversation. A successful moderator will
information. Three types of effective probing likely be able to facilitate a rich conversation
include: (1) the silent probe (i.e. say nothing until between collaborators and will be able to lever-
the collaborator elaborates on their own); (2) the age their expertise and experience to help inform
echo probe (i.e. repeating what the collaborator useful probes to move the conversation along in a
just said and adding “and then what happens,” rewarding way. Note, however, that even the
for example); and (3) the uh-huh probe (i.e. a most skillful moderator can encounter a group
neutral response to signify you have heard what that is hard to manage. Sadly, some groups work
was said, but gives the collaborator a chance to better than others and even very careful prepa-
say more). Other fairly universal and neutral ration does not guarantee fruitful conversation.
probes include, “can you describe…” or “tell me Not every topic is appropriate for a focus
more about…” or “what do you mean by…” It is group. Generally speaking, the researcher should
suggested that the research team have a probes choose a focus group over other interview
prepared in advance. approaches when they are seeking a group per-
spective or when they are less familiar with the
topic under study. A focus group or two early in
32.2.3 Group Approaches a study can teach or familiarize the research team
with the community perspective on an issue. This
Focus groups. A focus group is a group inter- can then inform the development of a more
view. Similar to individual interviews, focus effective interview guide or survey questions.
groups are a commonly employed qualitative However, focus groups are not ideal for some
data collection method. Focus groups are used in sensitive topics and should be avoided if col-
a variety of fields, including social science and laborator confidentiality is a priority. While the
marketing. While consensus building is occa- research team can work to keep participation in a
sionally the goal, most focus groups are designed study confidential, there is little, if anything, the
to collect an array of perspectives from multiple team can actually do if the collaborators of a
collaborators. focus group disclose the participation of other
During a focus group, several people (ideally collaborators (Krueger and Casey 2014; Morgan
between 8 and 10) are asked a series of questions 1997).
about a topic or experience. Questions are Data collection for focus groups. Focus
designed to encourage an interactive group con- groups can be conducted in person, over the
versation where group members speak freely to phone, or in a virtual setting. Assuming there are
other group members. Focus groups help no geographic challenges to bringing a group
researchers learn more about the social norms together, the in-person approach is favorable.
and priorities of a community. Like individual When conducting a focus group, the moderator
interviews, the quality of the focus group rests on engages with collaborators through a series of
the quality of the questions being asked. How- predetermined focus group questions: the focus
ever, focus groups are more challenging to con- group guide. As discussed earlier in the interview
duct than interviews. First, there are more section of this chapter, these questions are
logistical issues to consider. Bringing a group of designed to guide or start a conversation around
540 R. Frasso et al.

the topic of interest. The focus group guide must researcher gathers information by asking indi-
be made up of questions that are open-ended, viduals to respond to questions, and then asking
neutral, and non-leading. Questions need to be each individual to prioritize the ideas or sug-
designed to be asked of a group and not targeted gestions of all group members. The process
individuals, for example, a focus group moder- neutralizes some of the issues that can arise when
ator may ask the following question: “We are trying to help a group set priorities or goals.
trying to understand the challenges people face Additionally, this data collection approach can be
in your neighborhood. Would someone be will- employed when the research team anticipates
ing to begin our conversation on that topic?” conflict or tension that could interfere with the
The moderator needs to be an active listener mission of a focus group. NGT, by design, pre-
and ask tailored follow-up questions and probes vents one person or a small group of people from
but also needs to be sure that all collaborators dominating the conversation by encouraging all
have the time and space to share their thoughts. group members to participate (Delbecq et al.
The moderator should begin the focus group by 1986; Islam and Abdullah 2012; “Nominal
setting some ground rules. First, they should ask Group Technique,” 1984; CDC 2006).
collaborators to speak one at a time, remind them Data collection for nominal group tech-
that there are no right or wrong answers, and that nique: NGT works best with no more than 20
while they are free to disagree with statements individuals. At least two researchers are needed
made by collaborators, there is not time, nor is it to facilitate the process. The CDC (2006) has laid
a goal, to debate those responses. As stated out the Four Step Process to Conduct NGT:
above, and perhaps even more importantly in the
group context, the moderator should avoid 1. Generating Ideas: The moderator presents the
seeking specific answers to questions and needs question or problem to the group in written
form and reads the question to the group. The
to be flexible and responsive while keeping the moderator directs everyone to write ideas in
conversation somewhat restricted to the research brief phrases or statements and to work silently
mission. and independently. Each person silently gen-
The focus group guide can vary in structure erates ideas and writes them down.
based on the mission of the study and the mod- 2. Recording Ideas: Group members engage in a
erator’s experience and comfort level. Guides round-robin feedback session to concisely
record each idea (without debate at this point).
can be structured, unstructured, or
The moderator writes an idea from a group
semi-structured. Ideally, focus groups should be member on a flip chart that is visible to the
audio recorded and transcribed verbatim with the entire group, and proceeds to ask for another
explicit permission of all collaborators. A re- idea from the next group member, and so on.
search team member should act as a note taker
There is no need to repeat ideas; however, if
who will monitor the recording equipment and group members believe that an idea provides a
capture as much details about the group different emphasis or variation, feel free to
dynamics and the general tone of the conversa- include it. Proceed until all members’ ideas
have been documented.
tion. While the unit of analysis for a focus group
is the group itself, not the individual collabora- 3. Discussing Ideas: Each recorded idea is then
tors, based on the nature of the study, the note discussed to determine clarity and importance.
For each idea, the moderator asks, “Are there
taker may need to capture enough information any questions or comments group members
(e.g. the first few words spoken by each collab- would like to make about the item?” This step
orator) to allow for the research team to sort provides an opportunity for members to
responses at the individual level (Morgan 1997). express their understanding of the logic and the
relative importance of the item. The creator of
Nominal Group Technique. Nominal the idea need not feel obliged to clarify or
(meaning in name only) group technique explain the item; any member of the group can
(NGT) is a variation of a focus group wherein the play that role.
goal is to reach consensus. Using NGT, the
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 541

4. Voting on Ideas: Individuals vote privately to approved by community representatives and

prioritize the ideas. The votes are tallied to associated Institutional Review Boards (Kvale
identify the ideas that are rated highest by the
group as a whole. The moderator establishes and Brinkmann 2009; Morse and Richards 2002).
what criteria are used to prioritize the ideas. To The research team must become familiar with
start, each group member selects the five most their host institutions’ ethical processes and be
important items from the group list and writes thoughtful when collaborating across entities (in-
one idea on each index card. Next, each
member ranks the five ideas selected, with the cluding schools, prisons, non-profit organizations,
most important receiving a rank of 5, and the and hospital or government agencies) that might
least important receiving a rank of 1. After each have their own sets of rules that govern
members rank their responses in order of pri- research and quality improvement projects.
ority, the moderator creates a tally sheet on the
flip chart with numbers down the left-hand side
of the chart, which correspond to the ideas
from the round-robin. The moderator collects 32.2.4 General Thoughts
all the cards from the participants and asks one
group member to read the idea number and
number of points allocated to each one, while
Many researchers struggle when trying to decide
the moderator records and then adds the scores which qualitative data collection approach to
on the tally sheet. The ideas that are the most employ and how to recruit collaborators. First,
highly rated by the group are the most favored we suggest researchers consider potential ethical
group actions or ideas in response to the
question posed by the moderator.
barriers (e.g. the need for confidentiality) inher-
ent in any given approach. Second, we suggest
Ethical challenges for group data collection researchers consider the collaborators’ comfort
approaches. Group data collection approaches, and preferences (e.g. sensitive nature of the topic
like individual approaches, can prove to be a under study). Third, we suggest researchers
rewarding experience for the collaborator. Col- consider practical issues related to the study or
laborators often appreciate an opportunity to be research team (e.g. time, resources, skill).
heard and a chance to work with others who Finally, we suggest researchers engage commu-
share a similar experience or are concerned about nity members in the methodology decision
the same issues or community. However, focus making process as there may be cultural nuances
groups and nominal groups often explore chal- that make certain approaches more appealing or
lenging issues that can become problematic in a appropriate than others in certain contexts.
group setting. Before data collection begins, the Below is a table comparing and contrasting the
research team must be sure that the risks asso- data collection approaches discussed in the
ciated with participation do not outweigh the chapter (Table 32.1) and another table with
benefits. Additionally, researchers must address exemplar papers wherein each approach was
challenges to privacy that are unique to a group employed (Table 32.2).
method. If the research team believes that infor- Collaborator recruitment and selection is
mation shared in a group setting might prove to complex and the approach may vary based on
be sensitive in nature, harmful to an individual’s which data collection approach is chosen. Qual-
reputation, or has the potential to put an indi- itative work does not lend itself to random
vidual in danger, group methods should not be sampling and because the work is so time con-
used (Morgan 1997). The research team must suming, researchers rarely have the resources to
provide the collaborators an opportunity to opt conduct large-scale studies. Sample sizes are
out of participation in group data collection generally small and collaborators are identified
activities. This means acknowledging that there and invited to participate based on
might be some peer pressure on group members non-probability sampling (most often conve-
to stay engaged even when they would rather not. nience or snowball sampling). In a group setting,
Analogous to individual qualitative data col- care must also be taken to consider power
lection methods, the study should be reviewed and dynamics. For example, if you are exploring
Table 32.1 Data Collection Approaches and Related Considerations
542

Data generation Data Best fit for Strengths Weaknesses Ethical Time Skills Collaborator’s
approach collection concerns (participant’s)
medium role
Observation Field Understanding Covers events in Time consuming, difficult People or Can be Must be None—
notes the context in real time, to remain objective individuals may time-intensive objective, be able participant
which researcher can be not know they to blend in and often does not
participants live, “fly on the wall” are being take detailed know they are
work, or play. observed for notes being observed
Understanding research
social norms purposes
and behaviors.
Informing later
phases of
research.
In-depth Audio Focusing on Produces rich Takes time to become a Collaborators 30–120 min Objectivity, One-on-one
interviews recordings sensitive topics, data, sheds light skilled interviewer, must give patience, discussion
learning one on individuals’ transcription is informed adaptability, with researcher
person’s perspectives, time-consuming/expensive consent to ability to build
experience beliefs, participate— rapport with
behaviors, this may collaborator
motivations require reading
the consent
form aloud to
eliminate
potential
literacy barriers
Photo-elicitation Audio Generating rich Visual material Dissemination of Collaborators Extended Objectivity, One-on-one
recordings textual data and guides/prompts collaborators’ photographs need to be patience, discussion
visual discussion, can jeopardize their trained in adaptability, with
accompaniments collaborators anonymity, more time ethical ability to build researcher,
have thought consuming than traditional photography rapport with guided by
about interview interviews practices if collaborator photographs.
topic before taking original Collaborator
interview, visual photographs may be asked
artifacts can to take or bring
become part of photographs
(continued)
R. Frasso et al.
Table 32.1 (continued)
32

Data generation Data Best fit for Strengths Weaknesses Ethical Time Skills Collaborator’s
approach collection concerns (participant’s)
medium role
dissemination
(with approval
from
collaborator)
Walking Audio Real-time Does not rely on More logistically difficult Collaborator 30–60 min Ability to walk in Perform a task
interviews recordings explanations of memory as than traditional interviews, anonymity may addition to or series of
behavior or questions are collaborators can be be hard to in-depth tasks as they
thoughts asked as events distracted by environment maintain in a interview skills normally
are occurring, in public space would,
real time answering
researcher’s
questions as
they go
Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding …

Freelisting Pen and Taking the Very fast, easy Information gathered is None Quick Ability to engage Very brief
paper temperature of a analysis, can shallow – other methods with a stranger to engagement
domain, figuring inform interviews are needed to delve deeper collect a list of with researcher
out what is or focus groups into salient topics terms or phrases to list terms or
important or phrases
salient to a
group about a
given topic
Focus groups Audio Discovering Group setting and Not appropriate for Collaborators 60–120 min Ability to Group
recordings group or dynamics can sensitive topics, must be can’t be moderate a group conversation
community stimulate real mindful of group anonymous —foster a about a topic
norms or a range conversation and dynamics and diversity, because of the positive
of perspectives illuminate sometimes difficult to presence of environment,
within a collaborators’ navigate many other establish ground
community perspectives, a lot personalities and maintain collaborators, rules, manage
of data generated a healthy group dynamic and strong or difficult
in short time confidentiality personalities, and
frame is only redirect
maintained if conversation if it
all
(continued)
543
Table 32.1 (continued)
544

Data generation Data Best fit for Strengths Weaknesses Ethical Time Skills Collaborator’s
approach collection concerns (participant’s)
medium role
collaborators strays from the
abide by rules intended topic
Nominal group Pen and Determining Fast, equitable, Minimizes discussion, None Quick Must know how Provide ideas
technique paper consensus with generates many process is strict to facilitate the or topics based
a group about a ideas group activity, on the
topic for further avoid researcher’s
exploration confrontational question
behavior
R. Frasso et al.
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 545

Table 32.2 Data collection approaches and exemplar peer reviewed papers
Method Exemplar and reference paper
Observation Anderman, L. H., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students’
motivation and learning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record, 113(5), 969–1003
Holmes, S. M. (2013). “Is it worth risking your life?”: Ethnography, risk and death on the
US–Mexico border. Social Science & Medicine, 99, 153–161
In-depth interviews Scott, S. D., Hirschinger, L. E., Cox, K. R., McCoig, M., Brandt, J., & Hall, L. W. (2009).
The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse
patient events. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18(5), 325–330
Schrank, B., Sibitz, I., Unger, A., & Amering, M. (2010). How patients with schizophrenia
use the internet: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(5), e70
Aysola, J., Werner, R. M., & Shea, J. A. (2014, April). Asking the patient about
patient-centered medical homes. In Journal of General Internal Medicine (Vol. 29, pp. S27–
S27). 233 Spring St, New York, NY 10013 USA: Springer
Kangovi, S., Barg, F. K., Carter, T., Long, J. A., Shannon, R., & Grande, D. (2013).
Understanding why patients of low socioeconomic status prefer hospitals over ambulatory
care. Health Affairs, 32(7), 1196–1203
Zafar, H. M., Bugos, E. K., Langlotz, C. P., & Frasso, R. (2016). “Chasing a ghost”: factors
that influence primary care physicians to follow up on incidental imaging
findings. Radiology, 281(2), 567–573
Photo-elicitation True, G., Rigg, K. K., & Butler, A. (2015). Understanding barriers to mental health care for
recent war veterans through photovoice. Qualitative Health Research, 25(10), 1443-1455.
Bugos, E., Frasso, R., FitzGerald, E., True, G., Adachi-Mejia, A. M., & Cannuscio, C. (2014).
Peer reviewed: Practical guidance and ethical considerations for studies using
photo-elicitation interviews. Preventing Chronic Disease, 11
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1),
13–26
Padgett, D. K., Smith, B. T., Derejko, K. S., Henwood, B. F., & Tiderington, E. (2013).
A picture is worth…? Photo elicitation interviewing with formerly homeless
adults. Qualitative Health Research, 23(11), 1435–1444
Walking interviews Mitchell, L., Burton, E., & Raman, S. (2004). Dementia‐friendly cities: designing intelligible
neighbourhoods for life. Journal of Urban Design, 9(1), 89–101
Chrisinger, B. W. (2015). If you build it, will they come, and what will they eat? Investigating
supermarket development in food deserts
Carpiano, R. M. (2009). Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interview as a novel
method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & Place, 15
(1), 263–272
Jones, P., Bunce, G., Evans, J., Gibbs, H., & Hein, J. R. (2008). Exploring space and place
with walking interviews. Journal of Research Practice, 4(2), 2
Freelisting Fiks, A. G., Gafen, A., Hughes, C. C., Hunter, K. F., & Barg, F. K. (2011). Using freelisting
to understand shared decision making in ADHD: parents’ and pediatricians’
perspectives. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(2), 236–244
Barg, F. K., Keddem, S., Ginsburg, K. R., & Winston, F. K. (2009). Teen perceptions of good
drivers and safe drivers: implications for reaching adolescents. Injury Prevention, 15(1),
24–29
Keddem, S., Barg, F. K., Glanz, K., Jackson, T., Green, S., & George, M. (2015). Mapping
the urban asthma experience: Using qualitative GIS to understand contextual factors affecting
asthma control. Social Science & Medicine, 140, 9–17
Focus groups Kondo, M. C., Gross-Davis, C. A., May, K., Davis, L. O., Johnson, T., Mallard, M., … &
Branas, C. C. (2014). Place-based stressors associated with industry and air pollution. Health
& Place, 28, 31–37
Davitt, J. K., Bourjolly, J., & Frasso, R. (2015). Understanding inequities in home health care
outcomes: Staff views on agency and system factors. Research in Gerontological Nursing
(continued)
546 R. Frasso et al.

Table 32.2 (continued)

Method Exemplar and reference paper
Dichter, M. E., Cerulli, C., Kothari, C. L., Barg, F. K., & Rhodes, K. V. (2011). Engaging
With Criminal Prosecution: The Victim’s Perspective. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(1), 21–
37
Underwood, C., Skinner, J., Osman, N., & Schwandt, H. (2011). Structural determinants of
adolescent girls’ vulnerability to HIV: views from community members in Botswana, Malawi,
and Mozambique. Social Science & Medicine, 73(2), 343–350
Nominal group Drennan, V., Walters, K., Lenihan, P., Cohen, S., Myerson, S., & Iliffe, S. (2007). Priorities in
technique identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: A nominal group technique
study. Family Practice, 24(5), 454–460
Bissell, P., Ward, P. R., & Noyce, P. R. (2000). Appropriateness measurement: application to
advice-giving in community pharmacies. Social science & medicine, 51(3), 343–359

issues related to mental health in prisons, it analyzed, but freelisting interviews and NGT do
would not be advisable to invite both prisoners not (analysis was discussed briefly in the
and guards to participate in the same focus respective sections above). Transcripts are
group, even though each group would have a unique and making sense of that data is a com-
front-line perspective on how mental health plex process. In an academic setting, data col-
impacts life in prison. lection can lead to theory generation and more
In qualitative work, sample size should ideally research. In a community setting, the goal of data
be determined by saturation, that is, the research collection is often to create information to inform
team should only stop collecting data when they action or feed advocacy efforts. Just as approa-
stop learning new information. To appropriately ches of qualitative data collection vary widely, so
assess saturation, data collection and analysis do approaches to analysis. While modifications
must co-occur. That having been said, most of grounded theory or a phenomonologic
research teams and others employing these approach are often cited in the applied research
approaches do not have the unlimited resources it setting, researchers are usually conducting the-
would take to collect data without an end goal in matic analyses.
sight (Guest et al. 2006). Thus sample size is Briefly, there are two primary approaches to
often an educated guess, informed and restricted thematic analysis: Confirmatory (hypothesis dri-
by several factors including: access to study ven) and the more common Exploratory (content
collaborators, prior studies and literature, driven) (Guest et al. 2012). The exploratory
research aims and objectives, available time and approach is data (or collaborator) driven. That is
resources, and publishability. the interviewees’ voices drive the approach. The
research team reads and re-reads transcripts and
generates a codebook. The codes are developed
32.2.5 Data Analysis in two ways: a priori (informed by the literature
or the interview guide) and/or through
Data analysis varies slightly based on the format line-by-line reading of a subsample of interview
of the data collected. For example, most quali- transcripts. Each code is given an explicit defi-
tative data collection approaches discussed here nition to ensure coding accuracy and allow for an
result in a set of transcripts to be coded and assessment of intercoder reliability (Burla et al.
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 547

2008; Guest et al. 2012; MacQueen et al. 1998). References

Software (such as [Link], NVivo, and
MaxQDA) can and should be used if available to Barg, F. K., Huss-Ashmore, R., Wittink, M. N., Murray,
facilitate analysis. G. F., Bogner, H. R., & Gallo, J. J. (2006).
A mixed-methods approach to understanding loneli-
ness and depression in older adults. The Journals of
Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and
32.2.6 Dissemination and Reporting Social Sciences, 61(6), S329–S339.
Back to the Community Barg, F. K., Keddem, S., Ginsburg, K. R., & Winston, F.
K. (2009). Teen perceptions of good drivers and safe
drivers: Implications for reaching adolescents. Injury
It is imperative that early on in the research pro-
Prevention, 15(1), 24–29. [Link]
cess, research teams consider how they will share 2008.018572.
and make their findings useful to the community Bogdewic, S. P. (1992). Participant observation. In B.
with which they are collaborating. Traditionally, F. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
research dissemination focuses on peer reviewed
Borgatti, S. P. (1996). ANTHROPAC 4.0. Natick, MA:
literature, but that can take a great deal of time Analytic Technologies.
(sometimes there are years between data collec- Borgatti, S. (1999). Cultural Concensus Theory in: The
tion and manuscript publication). Community and ethnographic toolkit.
Bousfield, W. A., & Barclay, W. D. (1950). The
organization members should feel empowered to
relationship between order and frequency of occur-
discuss and negotiate how and when the research rence of restricted associative responses. Journal of
community will share findings with relevant Experimental Psychology, 40(5), 643–647. [Link]
stakeholders. Researchers should prioritize org/10.1037/h0059019.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2014). InterViews: Learning
reporting findings to the community over aca- the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.).
demic publications. Accessible reports with clear Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
and concise executive summaries are often pre- Bugos, E., Frasso, R., FitzGerald, E., True, G.,
ferred, but can be augmented or replaced with oral Adachi-Mejia, A. M., & Cannuscio, C. (2014).
Practical Guidance and ethical considerations for
presentations, exhibits, and posters. The dissem- studies using photo-elicitation interviews. Preventing
ination format should be approved by the com- Chronic Disease, 11. [Link]
munity representatives and shared with all 140216.
collaborators (Denzin and Lincoln 2011). Burla, L., Knierim, B., Barth, J., Liewald, K., Duetz, M.,
& Abel, T. (2008). From text to codings: Intercoder
In sum, qualitative research methods provide reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis.
a unique opportunity to capture the lived expe- Nursing Research, 57(2), 113–117. [Link]
riences of people, groups, and communities, and 1097/[Link].0000313482.33917.7d.
can provide voices to those who are marginalized Butler, M., & Derrett, S. (2014). The walking interview:
An ethnographic approach to understanding disability.
and disadvantaged. There are many types of Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Prac-
qualitative methods to employ, including obser- tice, 12(3). Retrieved from [Link]
vations, in-depth interviews, photo elicitation, ijahsp/vol12/iss3/6.
walking interviews, freelisting, focus groups, and Catalani, C., & Minkler, M. (2010). Photovoice: A review
of the literature in health and public health. Health
nominal group technique. Each method has Education & Behavior, 37(3), 424–451. [Link]
inherent strengths and weaknesses. Researchers org/10.1177/1090198109342084.
must weigh these options when choosing their CDC. (2006). CDC: Gaining consensus among stake-
method and be prepared to address potential holders through the nominal group technique.
Chrisinger, B. (2016). A mixed-method assessment of a
ethical issues that may arise. Qualitative inquiry new supermarket in a food desert: Contributions to
can be rewarding and informative for both the everyday life and health. Journal of Urban Health, 93
researcher and the collaborator. The process and (3), 425–437. [Link]
the data it produce help craft narratives that 0055-8.
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Qualitative
strengthen our ability to understand individuals research guidelines project. Retrieved August 10,
and communities. 2016, from [Link]
548 R. Frasso et al.

Collier, J. (1957). Photography in anthropology: A report 2018, from [Link]

on two experiments. American Anthropologist, 59(5), social-work-showcase.
843–859. [Link] Frasso: Social Work Research Showcase | Penn Libraries’
02a00100. Commons. (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2016, from
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doing qualitative [Link]
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. showcase.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing Freelisting. (2016, July 26). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from
and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). [Link]
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. From War To Home. (n.d.). [Program Homepage].
Delbecq, A. L., Ven, A. H. V. D., & Gustafson, D. H. Retrieved August 10, 2016, from [Link]
(1986). Group techniques for program planning: A FROMWARTOHOME/[Link] .
guide to nominal group and delphi processes (Vol. 1). Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many
Middleton, WI: Green Briar Press. interviews are enough? An experiment with data
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–
Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.). United 82.
States: SAGE Publications, Inc. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012).
DeWalt, K. M., DeWalt, B. R., & Wayland, C. B. (1998). Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles: Sage
Participant observation. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Publications.
Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. https://
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). [Link]/10.1080/14725860220137345.
Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chi- Iphofen, R. (2016). Ethical decision making in social
cago Press. research: A practical guide. Springer.
FHI. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data Islam, R., & Abdullah, M. M. (2012). Managing quality
collector’s field guide. Retrieved from [Link] in higher education: Applications of nominal group
[Link]/resource/qualitative-research-methods- technique. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic
data-collectors-field-guide. Publishing.
Fiks, A. G., Gafen, A., Hughes, C. C., Hunter, K. F., & Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social
Barg, F. K. (2011). Using freelisting to understand scientists (1 ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
shared decision making in ADHD: Parents’ and Publications Ltd.
pediatricians’ perspectives. Patient Education and Jones, P., Bunce, G., Evans, J., Gibbs, H., & Hein, J. R.
Counseling, 84(2), 236–244. [Link] (2008). Exploring space and place with walking
[Link].2010.07.035. interviews. Journal of Research Practice, 4(2), 2.
Focus Group Methodology: Principle and Practice: Pranee Jorgensen, D. L. (1998). Participant observation: A
Liamputtong: 9781847879097: [Link]: Books. methodology for human studies. Thousand Oaks,
(n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2016, from [Link] CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
[Link]/Focus-Group-Methodology-Principle- Keddem, S., Barg, F. K., Glanz, K., Jackson, T., Green,
Practice/dp/1847879098/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid= S., & George, M. (2015). Mapping the urban asthma
1470796960&sr=8-8&keywords=focus+group. experience: Using qualitative GIS to understand
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Second Edition contextual factors affecting asthma control. Social
(Qualitative Research Methods Series 16): Science and Medicine, 140, 9–17. [Link]
9780761903437: Medicine & Health Science Books 1016/[Link].2015.06.039.
@ [Link]. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2016, Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus Groups: A
from [Link] Practical Guide for Applied Research (5 Spi ed.).
Research-Second-Methods/dp/0761903437/ref=sr_1_ Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
2?ie=UTF8&qid=1470796960&sr=8-2&keywords= Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning
focus+group. the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los
Frasso, R. (2014). Walking Interviews: Speaking with Angeles: Sage Publications.
consumers while they shop where they live. Presented Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (1st
at the 142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
(November 15–November 19, 2014), APHA. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B.
Retrieved from [Link] (1998). Codebook Development for Team-Based
webprogram/[Link]. Qualitative Analysis. CAM Journal, 10(2), 31–36.
Frasso, R. (2015). Shopping for health food: A qualitative [Link]
study for the PDPH. Miaux, S., Drouin, L., Morency, P., Paquin, S., Gauvin,
Frasso, R. (2016). Frasso: Social Work Research Show- L., & Jacquemin, C. (2010). Making the narrative
case | Penn Libraries’ Commons. Retrieved March 7, walk-in-real-time methodology relevant for public
32 Qualitative Methods: Tools for Understanding … 549

health intervention: Towards an integrative approach. Tolley, E. E., Ulin, P. R., Mack, N., Robinson, E. T., &
Health & Place, 16(6), 1166–1173. [Link] Succop, S. M. (2016). Qualitative methods in public
1016/[Link].2010.08.002. health: A field guide for applied research. Wiley.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative True, G., Rigg, K. K., & Butler, A. (2015). Understanding
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. barriers to mental health care for recent war veterans
Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a through photovoice. Qualitative Health Research, 25(10),
user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, 1443–1455. [Link]
CA: Sage. Wang, C. (1999). Photovoice: A participatory action
Musante, K., & DeWalt, B. R. (2010). Participant research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal
observation: A guide for fieldworkers (Vol. 2). of Women’s Health/ the Official Publication of the
Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Society for the Advancement of Women’s Health
Nominal Group Technique: An Alternative to Brain- Research, 8(2), 185–192.
storming. (1984). Journal of Extension, 22(2). Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept,
Retrieved from [Link] methodology, and use for participatory needs assess-
[Link]. ment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387.
Padgett, D. (2017). Qualitative methods in social work [Link]
practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Sage Publications. Wang, C. C., Morrell-Samuels, S., Hutchison, P. M., Bell,
Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, L., & Pestronk, R. M. (2004). Flint photovoice: Com-
M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical challenges of munity building among youth, adults and policy makers.
researchers in qualitative studies: The necessity to American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 911–913.
develop a specific guideline. Journal of Medical Weller, S., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data
Ethics and History of Medicine, 7. Retrieved from collection.
[Link] Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty,
PMC4263394/. S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are
Savage, J. (2000). Participative observation: Standing in the easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9),
shoes of others? Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 324– 799–806. [Link]
339. [Link] 01785.x.
Skinner, J., & Gormley, G. J. (2016). Point of view Witnesses to Hunger. (2011, August 11). Retrieved July 31,
filming and the elicitation interview. Perspectives on 2016, from [Link]
Medical Education. [Link] org/our-projects/witnesses-hunger.
016-0278-0.