Peer review article selection2

docx

School

Western Kentucky University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

101

Subject

Accounting

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AgentTeam17275

Guideline #1  Were the data analyzed independently by two or more individuals?  General rule: results of qualitative research are considered more dependable when responses were independently analyzed (i.e. coded and/or categorized) by more than one person o Comparisons should be made after they finish their independent analysis o It should be explicitly stated how many individuals were involved in the analysis process Guideline 1–Examples in Book   Two independent research psychologists developed a list of domains or topic areas based on the content of the discussions and the focus group questions used to organize information into similar topics. Once each reviewer had independently identified their domains, the two reviewers compared their separate lists of domains until consensus was reached.   The interview notes were analyzed by three raters: myself and two doctoral students… Each quote from the notes was assigned a descriptive category according to its content. The notes were organized into groups with the same category labels. Some similar groups were combined under inclusive categories. The main categories that were derived from the interviews, the coping strategies, mechanisms, and resources were then defined. In the next stage, the information from the interviews was coded according to the refined categories, evaluated and summarized to describe the realities as accurately as possible. Each of the three raters independently analyzed the type of coping strategies and categories. Any disagreement between raters was discussed and resolved. The interrater reliability was high.   Was the data interpreted by two or more individuals?   As a consumer, what does this tell you about Guideline #2  Did the researchers seek feedback from experienced individuals and auditors before finalizing the results?  Auditors–experts on a subject that are asked to give feedback on a research study that weren’t involved in conducting the study  Seeking feedback on preliminary results from auditors ensures the results are trustworthy

Guideline 2–Example in Book At three separate points…, the work of the analysis team was reviewed by an auditor. The first point came after domains had been agreed upon, the second point came after core ideas had been identified, and the third point came after the cross-analysis. In each case, the auditor made suggestions to the team regarding the names and ideas the team was working on. Adjustments were made after the team reached consensus on the feedback given by the auditor. Examples of feedback given by the auditor included suggestions on the wording of domain and category names and a request for an increased amount of specificity in the core ideas put forth by the team members. The auditor was a Caucasian female faculty member in the social psychology discipline whose research is focused in the area of domestic violence.   What did the auditor contribute to the study? Guideline #3  Did the researchers seek feedback from the participants (i.e., use member checking before finalizing the results?  Member checking–the process of seeking feedback from participants in the research study o Not feasible when participants are very young or have limited cognitive abilities   Why use member checking? o Helps to ensure the trustworthiness of the results o Allows the participants to confirm the accuracy of their responses or volunteer additional information Guideline 3–Examples in Book  ensure methodological rigor, trustworthiness (Oktay, 2004; Straus & Corbin, 1998) of the data involved member (participant) checking to establish that the reconstructions were credible and that the findings were faithful to participants’ experiences. Participants were provided written and oral summaries of their responses and given opportunities, for correction, verification, and clarification through follow-up letters, telephone contacts, and interviews. For example, upon receiving their transcribed interviews, researchers told participants, “As you read through your transcript, you may want to make notes that would further clarify what was said or address an area that was not originally discussed.” And in the follow-up interview, participants were asked, “Are there any changes or additional comments that you would like to discuss in regard to the study’s findings?” Additionally, researchers

conducted ongoing peer debriefing to review their audit trail regarding the research process.   What did member checking contribute to this study? Guideline #4  Did the researchers name the method of analysis they used and provide a reference for it?  There are many different ways, or methods, that a researcher can use to analyze their data (i.e. Grounded theory, consensual qualitative research [CQR], etc.)  These methods, grounded in research, should be mentioned by name with a reference so consumers can seek additional information Guideline #5  Did the researchers state specifically how the method of analysis was applied?  The way that the method of analysis was used within the interpretation of results should be described in sufficient detail (i.e. step by step)   What would be the benefit to this for the consumer? Guideline 5–Examples in Book  analyzed transcribed data using a “code mapping” procedure as described by Knodel (1993). Code mapping requires that researchers read the transcript to identify sections that are relevant to the research questions and geta sense of possible categories within the data. A second reading is used to produce initial categories of words, phrases, and sentences. Cyclical reading and coding continues until final categories are derived from the data. In this analysis, all four authors read each focus group transcript independently to familiarize themselves with the data. Then three of the four authors (the social work assistant professor and doctoral student) independently coded participants’ statements into initial categories, based on the criteria of relevance to the research questions, clarity of expression, and consistency with other included statements. These authors then presented the resulting categories to each other during discussion. Agreement for assignment of statements to initial categories across coders ranged from 85% to 93%. Conjoint cyclical coding and additional discussion resulted in consensus on all categories and identification of illustrative quotations. These categories and quotations were reviewed by the additional author (the adoption

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

consultant) to minimize researcher bias (Piercy & Hertlein, 2005). No changes were recommended.  order to parsimoniously represent the common voice of participants we chose quotations that capture broadly endorsed and supported positions for inclusion in this article We also included quotations that express significant dissonant positions and identified them as such, in order to provide a balanced and accurate account of participants’ preferences.   Was the explanation of the analysis method adequate? Was there anything you wish that would have been included? Guideline #6  Did the researchers self-disclose their backgrounds?  Sometimes the researcher self-discloses their own background characteristics that relate to the topic being studied o i.e. self-disclosing your ethnicity or the nature of your culture in relation to a research study examining a problem area within that ethnicity or culture   As a consumer, why is this information important to know? o Allows the consumer to be introduced to any biases or personal points of view of the researcher Guideline 6–Examples in Book  Mary Lee Nelson is a professor of counseling psychology. She came from a lower middle-,working-class background, was the first in her family to pursue higher education, and had many of the experiences described by the research participants. This background provided her with important insights about the data. In addition, it might have biased her expectations about what participants’ experiences would be. She expected to hear stories of financial hardship, social confusion, loneliness, and challenges with personal and career identity development. Matt Englar-Carlson is a counseling psychologist and currently an associate professor of counselor education. He has strong interest in new developments in social class theory. He comes from a middle-class, educated family background. He came to the study with expectations that findings might conform to the social class worldview model, as developed by Liu (2001). Sandra C. Tierney is a recent graduate of a doctoral program in…   What do we know about the researchers?   As a consumer, is there anything else that you wish the researcher would have disclosed? Guideline #7

 Are the results of qualitative studies adequately supported with examples of quotations or descriptions of observations?  Qualitative researchers typically report themes and categories from the data in lieu of statistics o Represented by direct quotations of what participants said or descriptions of observed behaviors  This works as the evidence to support interpretations of the research Guideline #8  Are appropriate statistics reported (especially for demographics)?  Usually free of stats as too many may be a distraction  One of the most appropriate uses of statistics in qualitative research is to describe the demographics of the participants o Examples in your text on page 118-119 of what this may look like as a table and in text Guideline #9  Overall, is the Results section clearly organized?  The Results section is usually long o Use of subheadings can help the consumer navigate the findings summed up in the results section Guideline #10  Overall, is the presentation of the results adequate?  Determine if the results section was adequate after considering your evaluation for each guideline