As with all research, qualitative researchers need to consider the scientific value of their work and their contribution to knowledge (Willig, 2008). However, it has been argued that the criteria adopted to evaluate quantitative research (e.g. objectivity, reliability and generalisability) are not appropriate for judging qualitative research (Elliott et al.,1999; Yardley, 2000; Willig, 2008), since qualitative researchers are not seeking objectivity, predictable causal relationships and statistical generalisability.
In contrast, qualitative research is concerned with meaning in context and involves interpretation of data (Willig, 2008), which requires the researcher¶s active engagement with the data, and is therefore subjective. Qualitative researchers are integral to the research process and influence the knowledge produced through the development of their research questions, selection of methods and analysis, and through their interpretation of data (Yardley, 2015). Qualitative research is interested in the social context and the
complexities of individual experiences; therefore, small samples are selected based on participants¶ relationship to the phenomena under study.
To address these differences in research methodology, a number of guidelines have been produced for evaluating the quality and validity of qualitative research (Smith, 2011). These criteria aim to support the TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFKHU LQ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKDW WKHLU VWXG\ LV µWUXVWZRUWK\¶ µOHJLWLPDWH¶DQGµXVHIXO¶ <DUdley, 2015). Yardley (2000) has presented a set of four broad principles that can be applied to judging the quality of a wide range of qualitative research. Table 5.4 shows the ways in which I have attempted to DGGUHVV<DUGOH\¶V IRXUSULQFLSOHVDQGthe weaknesses of this study in relation to these.
Table 5.415F8@9MVG :CIF6FC58DF=B7=D@9G:CF9J5@I5H=B;H<9J5@=8=HMC:EI5@=H5H=J9F9G95F7<5B8H<9K5MG=BK<=7<H<=G study demonstrates these
Core principle
Ways the study demonstrates this principle Weakness of this study Sensitivity to
context
In order to give value to the perspectives of participants, interview questions were open- ended and the schedule flexible to enable
participants to talk freely about their experiences (Yardley, 2015).
Participants chose the location for the interview. Clear information was provided to participants in accordance with ethical procedures. This
included a visual, U7<=@8-:F=9B8@MV=B:CFA5H=CB G<99HHCGIDDCFHH<97<=@8F9BVGIB89FGH5B8=B; In accordance with Smith et al. (2009), analysis focused on the particular (e.g. the uniqueness of each interview) before exploring the broader context of all the interviews. Interpretations included similarities and differences to ensure all experiences were illustrated to reflect the range of meaning and understanding.
Verbatim extracts are provided in Chapters 6 and 7 to ensure the analysis remained grounded within the parti7=D5BHGV=B8=J=8I5@577CIBHG
There may have been difficulties with children expressing themselves due to underdeveloped language skills (see section 5.2.1 for a more detailed discussion).
Semi-structured interviews were the chosen data collection method. However it has been argued that in CF89FHC=B7F95G97<=@8F9BVG5;9B7M5B8HCCJ9F7CA9 power imbalances within research, children should be included as co-researchers or collaborators (Spyrou, 2011). Given the time longer time frame required to establish the role of children as more equal research collaborators/partners, this design was not adopted for this research study. See section 5.5 for further
discussion.
-<9F9G95F7<9FVGGH5HIG5G5UDGM7<C@C;=GHVA5M<5J9 had an impact on the views expressed. For example, D5F9BHGVDF9J=CIG9LD9F=9B79GC:=BH9F57H=B;K=H< psychologists within CAMHS and possible negative experiences around telling and re-telling their stories; 5B8 7<=@8F9BK5BH=B;HCDFCJ=89UGC7=5@@M5779DH56@9V answers to adults within school, may have influenced what and how they then communicated with me. !
(Willig, 2008).
Boys with a diagnosis of ADHD and their mothers took part in the study. Unintentionally, this has reinforced stereotypes around ADHD (see section 5.3). The voices of girls and fathers remain silent.
Commitment and rigour
Participants were purposively selected to obtain an homogenous group of children and their parents for whom the research question was meaningful (Smith & Osborn, 2015).
In addition to gaining the views of children the study sought the perspectives of one of their parents to understand more fully the
phenomena being studied.
Analysis of the interview transcripts adhered to the process described and espoused by Smith et al. (2009). Examples of this process have been presented in the appendices for review (see Appendices 10 and 11). Extracts from each participant are presented within each theme. To check the credibility of themes, participant feedback from one of the child-parent dyads was sought, to ensure themes were consistent with their views. However, as Osborn and Smith (1998) assert, the credibility check is not aimed at producing a single true account, but to ensure
The study did not seek feedback on the analysis from all those who took part in the study.
In addition to ADHD two of the child participants were in receipt of another diagnosis (Dyspraxia and
Oppositional Defiant Disorder) and their views may not solely reflect their experience of having ADHD.
However, given the high rates of co-morbidity (see section 2.5) recruiting a sample of participants with an ADHD only diagnosis is difficult. Furthermore, as Davies (2014) has argued excluding those who do not fit within the exclusive ADHD category definition, one could be viewed as attempting to µfix¶ the meaning of ADHD (see section 5.3 for further discussion).
the integrity of the final account. Coherence
and
transparency
My epistemological and ontological position has been described (see section 4.2 and 4.5.3) and a clear rationale for the research design has been presented (see sections 4.3 and 4.4). Recruitment of participants using clear selection criteria, as described in section 5.3.
The interview schedule was constructed following a thorough review of the literature, presented in Chapter 3 (see also Chapter 5, section 5.2.2).
A detailed description of the analysis is presented in section 5.7. As stated above examples from the paper trail have been provided (Appendices 10 and 11). The study adhered to the underlying principles of IPA: µSKHQRPHQRORJ\¶µLGLRJUDSK\¶DQG
µKHUPHQHXWLFV¶ VHHUHVXOWVGLVFXVVLRQLQ Chapters 6 and 7).
,3$UHFRJQLVHVWKDWWKHUHVHDUFKHU¶VLQWHUSUHWDWLon of WKHSDUWLFLSDQW¶VDFFRXQW is influenced by their own thoughts, understanding and conceptions (Willig, 2008). However, IPA has been criticised for not µWKHRULVLQJ¶KRZWKHUHVHDUFKHU¶VSHUVSHFWLYHVDUH incorporated within the research process (Brocki & Weardon, 2006; Willig, 2008). As far as possible, ways in which my own perspectives may have influenced the interpretative process has been
reflected upon (see section 4.5.2) and examples from the analysis provided to demonstrate what the
interpretations were based on.
Impact and importance
The impact and contribution of this research will be discussed in Chapter 8.