Search

'Open Science' advocates for open access to scientific research, as well as sharing data, analysis plans and code in order to enable replication of results. However, these requirements typically fail to account for methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research, and serious ethical problems are raised by the suggestion that full qualitative datasets can or should be published alongside qualitative research papers. Aside from important ethical concerns, the idea of sharing qualitative data in order to enable replication is conceptually at odds with the underpinnings on most qualitative methodologies, which highlight the importance of the unique interpretative function of the researcher. The question of whether secondary analysis of qualitative data is acceptable is key, and in this commentary we argue that there are good conceptual, ethical and economic reasons to consider how funders, researchers and publishers can make better use of existing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) was developed to support the use of evidence from qualitative reviews within policy- and decision-making. To date, the approach has been applied predominantly to aggregative synthesis methodologies and descriptive review findings. GRADE-CERQual guidance recommends the approach be tested on more diverse review methodologies and outputs to support its evolution. This paper contributes to this evolution by reflecting on our experiences of applying GRADE-CERQual to findings that emerged from a recent Cochrane meta-ethnography on childhood vaccination. Specifically, we describe the similarities and differences, challenges and dilemmas we experienced applying the approach to more interpretive versus more descriptive review findings. We found that we were able to apply the core criteria and principles of GRADE-CERQual in ways that were congruent with the methodologies and epistemologies of a meta-ethnography and its findings. We also found that the practical application processes were similar across review finding types. The main differences related to the level of demand placed on the evidence and the level of complexity involved with the decisions. Compared to more descriptive findings, more interpretive findings required evidence that was richer, thicker, more contextually situated and methodologically stronger for us to have the same level of confidence in them. Making the assessments for these findings also involved more complicated forms of judgement. We provide practical examples to illustrate these complexities and how we approached them, which others applying GRADE-CERQual to more interpretive review findings could draw upon. We also highlight areas requiring further discussion, in the hope that this will offer a platform for engagement and the potential future refinement of the approach. Ultimately, this could enhance the usability of GRADE-CERQual for a larger range of qualitative review findings and in turn expand the kinds of knowledges that count within decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops and applies a methodology of qualitative inquiry that equips researchers to capture how social actors produce and contest accepted forms of knowledge at the margins of mainstream globalizing discourses in times of crisis. Standing at the intersection between conceptual and empirical research, our methodology builds on the common epistemological premises of 'narrative', as stories constructed and enacted in social life, and 'practice', as tasks and projects composed by 'doings' and 'sayings'. Overcoming the dualism between 'action' and 'discourse' in traditional social theory, this methodology integrates narrative theory and practice theory into a joint framework for fieldwork and interviews. The use of the narrative-practice methodology in ethnographic case studies – such as interpreters' experience of the COVID-19 pandemic in Qatar – allows researchers to gain analytical granularity on participants' storied practice and practiced stories of the crisis, to harness 'peripheral' knowledge and refashion public discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential of dialectical pluralism (DP) for nursing knowledge development. Nursing scholars have discussed ways of developing nursing knowledge, exploring the fit and relevance of various worldviews for knowledge development and examining the dynamic and perpetual processes of knowledge development. Scholars have argued that knowledge development occurs under a certain worldview to which the researcher adheres. Many nurses employ various worldviews, which can give rise to ontological and epistemological conflicts. DP can help nurses appreciate the diversity of worldviews and recognize the importance of implicit worldviews to generate more practical nursing knowledge. DP as a philosophical approach can enable nurses to communicate between diverse worldviews, become tolerant of conflicting differences, and develop an array of nursing knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]