 |
 |
I too would like to know if there is currently a qualitative methods listserve
operating. I would like for my grounded theory students to subscribe and to
particiapte.
Margaret A. Imle, Ph.D., R.N.
Associate Professor in Child and Family Nursing
Population Based Nursing Care Department
Oregon Health Sciences University
3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road
Portland, Oregon 97215 USA
e-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: (503)494-3823
>>> Paul Heron <[log in to unmask]> 09/29 5:55 AM >>>
If the query below is off topic for this list, I would be interested to
know of other lists where such questions are discussed. I'm new to qual
methodology and find the answers to applied questions such as these of
great use.
(Perhaps any replies should come direct to my email address to avoid
cluttering this list)
> ----------
> From: Anna triandafyllidou[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 29 September 1998 13:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Theoretical sampling query
>
> Interesting the query of the colleague below may be, I would like this
> list
> to stick to qualitative methods-software issues not methodological
> issues
> in general. Or, we run the risk of being overwhelmed by messages which
> make
> little sense to a large part of the list subscribers. Besides, this
> would
> endanger the list's very purpose: discussing and developing ideas
> about the
> use of software in qualitative research.
> I would ask fellow subscribers to correct me if I am wrong.
> With best wishes,
> Anna Triandafyllidou
>
> >Original-Sender: [log in to unmask]
> >Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:01:51 +0100 (BST)
> >Priority: NORMAL
> >X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.2 Build (32)
> >X-Authentication: IMSP
> >Subject: Theoretical sampling query
> >From: Colin Greaves <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: Andrew Stuart <[log in to unmask]>,
> [log in to unmask],
> > , [log in to unmask]
> >X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave qual-software' to
> [log in to unmask]
> >Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> >Sender: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >I have a bit of a methodological quandary about sampling.
> >
> >I want to analyse both existing interview data and future
> >interviews, using a grounded theory approach. The
> >interviewees can be selected from a population of
> >participants in a wider study (N= 120), which is looking at
> >2 distinct groups -
> >
> > a.)asthma patients who have been using the emergency
> >services a lot, and
> > b.) matched controls who have the same age, gender and
> >(doctor-rated) asthma severity, but have not used the
> >emergency services for years.
> >
> >The interviews consist of a fixed core of questionnaires
> >and categorical questions (necessary for other parts of the
> >study), as well as a more open, loosely-structured
> >qualitative section, where I can ask whatever I want.
> >
> >So far 60 subjects have been interviewed, and another 60
> >are to be done. (so I still have chances to ask about
> >evolving categories / concepts)
> >
> >The sampling restrictions on the main-study population are
> >not necessarily a problem for the qualitative work, as I am
> >interested in sampling to maximise the similarities and
> >differences related to the effectiveness of patients'
> >asthma-control / coping strategies. Having a sample which
> >is polarised in terms of an asthma-control outcome enables
> >me to do this.
> >
> >My first round of interviewees for open coding will be
> >selected from the existing (already interviewed)
> >population, and then further theoretical sampling and
> >questioning will be based on categories and dimensions
> >elicited from this first round (I am doing the interviews
> >myself, and can change the content of the qualitative
> >section at will / as issues arise).
> >
> >The question is - when sampling for open coding, should I
> >pick pairs of subjects (already matched for age, gender and
> >asthma severity), or just pick from the high-emergency-use
> >group and the control group at random?
> >
> >If I pick matched pairs, then this will mean the pairs will
> >not differ in terms of asthma severity, which is clearly an
> >imortant determinant of ability to control asthma. However,
> >the whole point of the study is to find out what other
> >factors (apart from asthma severity) contribute to good or
> >poor asthma-control. If I sample matched pairs, this should
> >theoretically maximise the similarities and differences
> >related to the effectiveness of patients' asthma-control
> >strategies, whilst minimising the variation due to
> >underlying illness-severity.
> >
> >If I select patients at random from both groups, then
> >presumably underlying severity would come through as a major
> >category, but this could serve to obscure / confuse other
> >important issues. Basically, I don't need to re-discover
> >that increased severity of asthma causes more control
> >problems!
> >
> >Sampling matched pairs is my preferred option at the
> >moment, but I'm not sure if such restrictive sampling is
> >acceptable for a grounded theory approach. Can anyone see
> >any reason why I should or shouldn't select my initial
> >
> >sample in this way, or suggest a better sampling strategy.
> >
> >
> >Colin Greaves
> >The Health Psychology Research Group
> >Washington Singer Laboratories
> >University of Exeter
> >Perry Road
> >Exeter
> >EX4 4QG
> >
> >Tel: 01392 264610 Fax 01392 264623
> >
> >
>
> ===========================================
> | |
> | Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou |
> | Marie Curie Fellow |
> | Institute of Psychology |
> | Italian National Research Council (CNR) |
> | viale Marx 15, Rome 00137, Italy |
> | tel. +39 06 86090220 |
> | fax +39 06 824737 |
> | e-mail: [log in to unmask] (o) |
> | [log in to unmask] (h) |
> ===========================================
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%