Mo, in her email (see below), has raised another area of interest when
people study human situations, i.e. the applicability and use of qualitative
and quantitative approaches.

I would be interested to hear other list members' views on the role that
these two approaches have to studying health in the work-place. I have some
views but I'll hold onto them until others have a go.

I look forward to reading comments.

Kevin




-----Original Message-----
From: Maureen Mcbain [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 April 2001 8:01 am
To: Maguire, Kevin
Subject: Re: Re: Occupationally induced Stress - cultural differences


Hi Kevin
I agree with what you say. I wanted to highlight the fact working within
the
positive paradigm as you initially suggested is only one way of working.
Simply because traditionally research within the health care world has
focused
on the empirical approach using quantitative methods and perhaps if we look
at other
professional groups like those in the world of sociology. We can see the
benefit
of using quantitative and qualitative methods. Therefore giving you
more credible results (Denzin. 1978 -from The Research Act: a theoretical
introduction to sociology methods).Because where perhaps where one tool does
not give
you the answer you are seeking, you then have another two different sources
of information gathered that perhaps will hold the answer for you. If is one
which
has been tried and tested before but difficult to do well and get it right!

Anyway I shall be interested to hear what method/s and tool/s you
eventually use and how you over come the cross cultural
issue with regard to testing what ever you use. As I belive many tools are
transferrable if adapted to the different context and tested within it.


Anyway Good luck Kevin
From Mo

-----Original Message-----
From: Maguire, Kevin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10 April 2001 15:00
Subject: Re: Occupationally induced Stress - cultural differences


>Mo,
>
>Thanks for your comments. What you say opens up the important debate of
>objectivity applied to human experience. Clinicians would argue that there
>is an objective assessment of anxiety and depression and that two (or more)
>people can be graded against each other in terms of how much. Further they
>would argue that a relative measure can be made.
>
>Both the CCEI and the GHQ (mentioned in the first e-mail)have been
validated
>against clinical diagnosis and in that sense concurrent validity can be
>demonstrated. You raise the question of reliability, and again the
measures
>of which I wrote earlier would claim reliability, but more fundamentally
you
>raise the question of construct validity. Ultimately, while there are
>tests of logic, there is an element of faith (i.e. is one convinced?) in
>whether the 'nomological network' (as Cronbach calls it) exists. I feel
>confident in saying that most people would accept that anxiety and
>depression are worthwhile concepts (I suppose that the Anti-psychiatry
>movement of the sixties might question it (I am not belittling that
movement
>in saying this) but they were more concerned with the problems of both
>social labelling and the lack of understanding of the legitimacy of the
>individual's cognitions in response to the environment in which they
>developed). It is a question of whether the observations chosen fits into
>the network.
>
>As to the matter of subjective experience, you raise two matters: the
>cultural aspect (see below) and also individual differences. I believe
that
>clinicians would argue that presentations may be individual but that the
>underlying experiences are similar (and comparable/measurable).
>
>So back to the role of culture in the experience of the conditions! My
>concern is that while the measures that I use are validated, etc., they
>appear to relate to a western experience of these conditions. I might be
>wrong and they may be universal experiences of the conditions.
>
>I look forward to any suggestions.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Kevin
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Maureen Mcbain [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 06 April 2001 2:40 pm
>To: Maguire, Kevin
>Subject: Re: Occupationally induced Stress - cultural differences
>
>
>Hi Kevin
>I don't know about trying to measure anxiety and depression in different
>cultures! But are you looking at specific groups within different cultures
>e.g. by gender. As in do men and women with anxiety and depression cope
>differently? What do you mean by anxiety and depression as theses terms are
>subjective to the individual and difficult to quantify and measure unless
>you use a reliable tool/questionnaire or other research method that has
been
>tested before or possibly design your own. However you would then have to
>pilot the tool for reliability and validity!
>Have you seen a book by McDowell. I and Newell. C (1996) : Measuring
Health:
>a guide to rating scales and questionnaire. New York. Oxford. That may be
>worth a look and it should be available in most nursing libraries.
>
>Good luck
>Mo McBain.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Maguire, Kevin <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 05 April 2001 11:49
>Subject: Occupationally induced Stress - cultural differences
>
>
>>I would appreciate any refs. that people might suggest in relation to the
>>measurement of anxiety and depression in different cultures. The measures
>>with which I have familiarity (mainly CCEI and GHQ) do not appear to
accord
>>totally with what I have read about the experience of mental illness in
all
>>cultures.
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Kevin
>>
>