How can we as researchers enhance the quality of our studies?

Qualitative research has found its place in the scientific community even though some representatives of quantitative research still claim that qualitative research is “fluffy” and does not yield “true” results. I believe that in some instances they are right even though the arguments have calmed down a bit since more qualitative research is presented. I believe that we as qualitative researchers have to start to discuss in our groups—how can we assure and enhance the quality of the qualitative research we are conducting? We need to address those issues and not only compete with the quantitative community, but also be critical towards the quality of the qualitative research we are presenting ourselves. That is, those who have the expertise in qualitative research should be the ones who prompt the discussions about quality, rigor and trustworthiness and how to refine the methods used, in order to reach more a profound understanding of what is researched. One way of doing this might be attending research conferences for qualitative research and in sessions, during workshops etc, actively discuss and try to enhance both quality and rigor in methods under discussion. I hope this will generate a scholarly debate between representatives from different disciplines on methodological issues and on how to take the issue forward. Another way is to submit articles, discussion papers, and philosophical papers to International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. The journal has great importance in supporting, shaping and improving qualitative research focusing health and well-being among our citizens worldwide whilst its scope is entirely qualitative studies.

One of the problems we face as qualitative researchers is that we mainly work in smaller research groups and the members often use the same methodological approach. This could be an advantage, enabling us to better understand the use of that specific method. However, a disadvantage with small groups is that the critical questioning and reflections are difficult to address when everyone in the group has a similar understanding of the said method. It is difficult to identify the blank spots in both method and our understanding of it. I would therefore like to propose that we work more closely with different research groups in order to develop our understanding, critical thinking and the quality of the different methods we use. One way to do this is to not only limit our cooperation with groups in our own universities and countries but also to include cooperation with colleagues in other countries. By this we gain a larger critical mass and we can also develop an understanding of the differences between our countries. Differences in the social welfare system, health care system and living conditions are examples of what we need to understand in order to make the results we come up with interesting for readers in other countries. In a critical review from 2005, Svein Olav Daatland questions why the authors are so ignorant about the fact that research and social systems in other countries could have helped them to understand and forward other theses than those presented? Often when I discuss with colleagues and students about their results I ask them “Why should a researcher in the Philippines or in the USA take time and bother to read your paper? What can they learn from it?” Even though our colleagues in other countries live and work under different circumstances there is always something that we can learn from each other and we need to highlight the unique in order to move forward globally. Reading papers from colleagues from different parts of the world and the problems they have studied also gives me an understanding that despite different contexts the issues of caring, health and well-being are essentially the same. An example of a group of researchers from different universities and European countries working together is EACS (European Academy of Caring Science), where the interest in developing both the caring science and the qualitative methods is the loadstar. The EACS meets twice a year for discussions and once every second year for a scientific conference. Our hope is that through this cooperation we can move both caring science and the qualitative methods forward in order to develop the knowledge base for health care services. An interested reader can find more information at this website: http://www2.pubcare.uu.se/care/eacs/.

The issues of enhancing quality in qualitative research and an understanding of similarities and differences in living conditions, health care systems and social systems globally need to be addressed. But we cannot be satisfied with just addressing them, we need to take action and actively work on those issues together in research teams across borders. Then I believe we can achieve a good quality foundation for a developed health care—sound and well-conducted research.

Ingegerd Fagerberg

Professor Caring Science

Ersta Sköndal University College

Stockholm, Sweden