Optimizing the research rigor

In order to establish rigour of the data collected, there were a number of quality criteria strategies, as suggested by Carspecken (1996), that I employed which included:

• Use multiple recording devices. During the narrative and semi- structured in-depth interviews, I used an audio recorder in addition to taking detailed notes. Given the nature of the participant observation sessions, which commonly took place within the community, I was not able to audio record the sessions. Instead I took detailed notes

immediately following the observation session detailing my observations, the information the participants shared, and my key reflections.

• Use a flexible observation schedule. The participant observation

sessions occurred on the day of the week and time that was necessary for the particular occupation. Some observations were required to take place at a particular date and time (such as the Braille lesson or craft club), while other participants were more flexible in terms of when the session occurred. The participant observation sessions occurred between January and June 2013 thereby allowing observation to occur during different seasons and on different days and times of the week.

• Practice prolonged engagement in the field and with the participants.

Data collection occurred over a period of nine months, between December 2012 to September 2013. The older adult participants engaged in three data generation sessions with P1-P5 engaging in data generation over approximately two months and P6-P10 engaging for approximately one month. The community organization representatives participated in one data generation session. In addition to the data collection methods

employed for this study, I practiced prolonged engagement in the field through my volunteer work with the HCoA as well as my research and paid work with CNIB as outlined in section 3.3.2.

• Engage in peer debriefing. As a quality criteria strategy, peer debriefing was engaged in with my doctoral supervisor throughout the data

generation and analysis process. Engagement in peer debriefing was consistent with the dialogical approach I assumed during data generation. It allowed me to engage in a type of collective reflexivity with my

supervisor regarding what I was and was not seeing in my data sets. These meetings also encouraged me to continue to push myself to apply my critical lens to the data. Peer debriefing was also used in order to ensure that I remained consciously aware of how my own beliefs and values were affecting what I was studying and also how information was being collected, analysed, and shared (Thomas, 1993). This process, which occurred prior to entering the field as well as throughout data collection, provided a means through which to discuss my research expectations in an effort to raise awareness of my own perspectives (Carspecken, 1996).

• Interview the same research participant repeatedly. By interviewing the same older adult study participants at three separate points in time, the research participants became “more likely to produce richer and more self-disclosing information than that produced in a single interview”

(Carspecken, 1996, p. 166). This was observed first-hand, when

participants in the semi-structured in-depth interview more openly shared the challenging aspects of their story of vision loss with me.

• Encourage participants to describe their experiences using the terms they employ within naturalistic contexts. I encouraged the older adult participants to describe their experiences of low vision using the terms and vocabulary that was familiar to them. In an effort to encourage the use of

familiar terms, I mirrored the terminology used by the participants. For example I would refer to AMD as "the macular" to coincide with the terminology used by a research participant.

In addition to employing the quality criteria listed above, I also engaged in reflexivity throughout the research process, which is integral to any critical ethnographic work, as promoted by Carspecken (1996). Prior to entering the field, I wrote a reflexive note regarding what I expected to find through my discussions with the older adults with ARVL. This process, as recommended by Carspecken (1996), helped to raise my consciousness and allowed for an exploration of key biases prior to entering the field. This type of reflexivity is particularly important in critical research as its purpose is to “expose the

researchers’ personal constructions of the world, their values, beliefs, strengths, and weaknesses that mold the research journey and choices made” (Mulhall, Le- May & Alexander, 1999 as seen in Hardcastle, Usher & Holmes, 2006, p. 158). This process set the stage for continued reflexivity throughout the data

generation and analysis process.

Once in the field, I maintained a reflexive journal in order to note the reactions and reflections I had in relationship to the research process and findings. I also integrated reflexive notes within the field notes for each of the participant observation sessions to note my reactions to the observations I made. Many of my reflexive journal entries spoke to the challenges I encountered both as a researcher and an occupational therapist. As an occupational therapist I felt compelled, at times, to provide recommendations to the participants to enable their success with a particular task and promote strategies for safety. Through my reflexive journaling, however, I was able to consciously work through these role challenges in addition to some of the disconnect I was beginning to feel regarding the importance of concepts such as independence and minimizing risk that are otherwise so integral to the occupational therapy profession.

Engaging in conscious reflexivity allowed me to more fully realize that representation has consequences(Madison, 2012). This was particularly important given the concept of positionality which states that the researcher needs to consider how their own act of representing a particular group is an act of domination, requiring researchers to “acknowledge our own power, privilege, and biases just as we are denouncing the power structures that surround our subjects” (Madison, 2012, p. 7). Positionality required me to turn back on myself in order to better understand why I was doing the research and how it would ultimately benefit the lives of others (Madison, 2012). By acknowledging the influence of positionality, I was able to recognize that my own cultural position, in relationship to the study, influenced what was studied, the information that was collected, and how it was interpreted. This influence, however, was necessary as there is the expectation that as a critical ethnographer I will be actively engaged in the research process and not be just a passive recorder (Thomas, 1993). To ensure that I maintained the integrity of my research participants, while also considering my own cultural position relative to the research, I asked myself the following reflexive questions (as adapted from Madison, 2012) throughout the critical ethnography including:

1) What is my purpose and intention behind the research I intend to do? 2) What is the intended benefit of the research? How will this make a

difference in people's lives?

3) Have I evaluated my own potential to do harm?

4) How do I collaborate appropriately with others involved in this research project?

5) How are these research findings contextualized in the broader social and political environment?

6) How will my work make the greatest social contribution?

This chapter began by outlining the critical ontological and epistemological underpinnings of my research. This was followed by a description of how my ontological and epistemological position informed my choice of a critical ethnographic methodology for this research. I then provided a detailed description of the research field, which centred on the Hamilton-Haldimand- Niagara-Brant region. This description of the research field also included a

discussion of my immersion in the low vision field, centering primarily on my work with the CNIB, HAC, and HCoA. The recruitment process used for this study and a detailed description of the sample, as collected through the demographic questionnaire, was then presented. Next, the particular data generation and analysis methods employed in this research study were described followed by a description of how the collected data, including numerical, textual, and audio, was managed throughout the research process. Finally, a discussion of the quality criteria used to ensure research rigour within this critical ethnographic study was presented and discussed in relation to the data collected and

analysed. Although I articulated the key theoretical perspectives informing this critical ethnography, I did not explicate, in this chapter, how I drew upon and applied a critical gerontological perspective or critical disability theory. Thus, in the next two chapters, I articulate how the infusion of a greater critical sensibility within environmental gerontology (chapter four) and the use of critical disability theory (chapter five) may provide fruitful ways forward in terms of enhancing understandings of age-related vision loss.

3.11 References

Adler, P.A. & Adler, P. (1987). Membership Roles in Field Research. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Averill, J.B. (2006). Getting started: Initiating critical ethnography and community- based action research in a program of rural health studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 17-27.

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analyzing Policy: What’s the problem represented to be?

Australia: Pearson.

Carpenter, C., & Suto, M. (2008). Chapter 2: Why choose qualitative research in rehabilitation? In C. Carpenter & M. Suto, Qualitative research for occupational and physical therapists: A practical guide (pp. 21-39). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Carroll, W.K. (2004). Unpacking and contextualizing critical research strategies. In W.K. Carroll (Ed.) Critical Strategies for Social Research. Toronto, ON:

Canadian ScholarsPress.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

Connidis, I., & McMullin, J. (2002). Sociological ambivalence and family ties: A critical perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 558-567.

Cook, K.E. (2005). Using critical ethnography to explore issues in health promotion. Qualitative Health Research, 15(1), 129-138.

Cooney, K. (2006). Mothers first, not work first: Listening to welfare clients in job training. Qualitative Social Work, 5(2), 217-235.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gardezi, F., Lingard, L., Espin, S., Whyte, S., Orser, B., & Baker, G.R. (2009). Silence, power and communication in the operating room. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(7), 1390-99.

Given, L. (2008). The Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. Los

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Competing paradigms in qualitative research: Theories and issues. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.),

Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice (17- 38).

Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Groenkjaer, M. (2002). Critical ethnographic methodology in nursing research: Issues and solutions. Contemporary Nurse, 14(1), 49-55.

Hardcastle, M., Usher, K., & Holmes, C. (2006). Carspecken's five-stage critical qualitative research method: An application to nursing research. Qualitative Health Research, 16(1), 151-161.

Jamal, S. (2005). Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies. New York:

Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Kushner, K., & Morrow, R. (2003). Grounded theory, feminist theory, critical theory: Toward theoretical triangulation. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(1), 30-

43.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (253-291). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Madison, S. (2012). Critical Ethnography: Method, ethics and performance. Los

Angeles: Sage Publications.

Manderson, L., Bennett, E., & Andajani-Sutjahjo, S. (2006). The social dynamics of the interview: Age, class, and gender. Qualitative Health Research, 16(10),

1317- 34.

Mangione, C., Lee, P., Pitts, J., Gutierrez, P., Berry, S., & Hays, R. (1998). Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Archives of Ophthalmology, 116, 1496-1504.

Manias, E. & Street, A. (2001). Nurse-doctor interactions during critical care ward rounds. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10, 442-450.

Mulhall, A., Le-May, A., & Alexander, C. (1999). Bridging the research-practice gap: A reflective account of research work. Nursing Times Research, 4(2), 119-

131.

Ponterotto, J. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling

Sanjek, R. (2002). Ethnography. In A. Barnard & J. Spencer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology (pp. 193–198). New York: Routledge.

Simon, R., & Dippo, D. (1986). On critical ethnographic work. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 17, 195-202.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Spradley, J. (1980) Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Suzuki, L., Mattis, J., Ahluwalia, M., & Quizon, C. (2005). Ethnography in counseling psychology research: Possibilities for application. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 206-214.

Thomas, J. (1993). Doing Critical Ethnography. California: Sage Publications Inc.

Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narratives and Semi- structured Methods. London: Sage Publications.

Wolfinger, N. (2002). On writing field notes: Collection strategies and background expectancies. Qualitative Research, 2, 85-95.