Comparative aspect of study design

A further component was employed in this research design that entailed the inclusion of a non-healthcare comparator group. A ‘comparison’, or ‘comparator’ group, is the term that is generally used in place of ‘control’ group, when research does not involve an experimental design (Polit and Beck 2017) and this is the terminology used in this study. Surveys often incorporate some form of comparison which entails using all, or mostly identical methods to examine two contrasting cases or situations (Bryman 2016; Polit and Beck 2017). McFadyen et al. (2010) note that in general there is a marked dearth in the IPE literature both in experimental and non-experimental designs which incorporate a control or comparison group to help understand the findings. Comparative designs embody the logic of comparison whereby it is thought that social phenomena can be better understood if they are compared to a minimum of two

143

contrasting cases, situations, characteristics, events, policies or practices etc. (Parahoo 2014; Bryman 2016). Hence they are useful to ascertain if a phenomenon under study is associated with a particular context or group of individuals, and as such can add strength to a survey regarding interpretation of the findings.

In order to gain further insight into the phenomena under investigation and explore if the students’ perspectives were possibly associated with being a student in a healthcare group from a Faculty of Health Sciences, the non-healthcare comparator group was selected from an alternative Faculty for comparative purposes. Investigating comparisons between six healthcare professional groups was a primary objective for this inquiry so the study by its very nature constituted a comparative component (Parahoo 2014). However, the use of the non-healthcare comparator provided an alternative angle through which to draw conclusions from the data. This is in recognition that whilst there are six individual healthcare groups with their own individual professional identities, they also comprise a single healthcare group with a common identity that is ‘healthcare student’ (Tajfel and Turner 1979). Hence, it was considered useful to include a non-healthcare comparator from an alternative Faculty within the institution to ascertain if changes were unique to the healthcare students studying together within the same Faculty. This comparative component was not, or needed to be, the primary focus of the study (Polit and Beck 2017). It was expected to, as Polit and Beck (2017) suggest, provide a context for comprehending the findings.

Comparative studies can become quite complex in terms of data analysis (Bryman 2016) and this study was not without logistical challenge. Whilst a few items on the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) were amenable for comparison

144

between the healthcare and non-healthcare groups, the underlying construct for measurement that is, readiness for IPE measured by the composite scale scores, did not logically lend itself to comparison between these two groups. Nevertheless, the comparator had value for comparison on variables relating to strength of professional identity, importance/value attributed to the presence of the different healthcare professions on the IPW team, and professional stereotyping. These variables were then explored for group comparisons as they related to changes between the two timepoints and, as such, provided useful information about how the healthcare students’ attitudes changed by comparison to those not part of this group.

The other issue which posed a dilemma for the researcher related to the choice of comparator and much consideration was given to choosing a suitable comparator group. It was essential to obtain data that could provide a sufficient comparison to the healthcare participants (Bryman 2106). On that basis it was essential to recruit a comparator that was not part of the Faculty of Health Sciences. Originally the group of choice was a cohort of students from the Faculty of Engineering, Mathematics and Science undergoing a Bachelor degree in mathematics. However, on discussion with peers and supervisors at the early design study phase, it was agreed this group were possibly too far removed from the realm of healthcare and possibly too disparate from the healthcare cohort. A group with an orientation towards care of people was considered the preferred option. It was subsequently agreed that a cohort from the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences could best provide a suitable comparator. Following much deliberations between researcher and advisory committee, a cohort of Bachelor of Social Studies students became the comparator of choice because it was felt these students had an appreciation for the issues relating to both

145

health care and collaborative working, but at the same time belonged to a different Faculty and did not share the same experiences as the healthcare students. However, it is essential to note as Bryman (2016) contends, any differences observed between groups are not necessarily resulting from the distinguishing features between groups.

4.5 Conclusion

Quantitative and qualitative research methods differ in terms of the role and assumptions of the researcher and how the research should be conducted to address the inquiry. How a researcher sees the world will influence how the research is undertaken to discover truth about phenomena. This chapter has detailed the philosophical and theoretical components underpinning this study. It has illuminated the worldview held by the researcher which informed the study design. The next chapter presents the methods, detailing the specific and logical steps taken to address the study aim and objectives.

146