It should be done by adhering to the information given in the course book. PhD level,apa 7 format..
Select one of the research topics from this link:
https://studycorgi.com/ideas/veterans-essay-topics/
Course book: Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches,
Read 1: Creswell & Poth: Chapter 10
Read 2: https://ebn.bmj.com/content/18/2/34
Read 3: Welcome to Chapter 10, standards of validation and evaluation. Many perspectives exist regarding the importance of validation and qualitative research, the definition of it, terms to describe it and procedures for establishing it. Having a view a validation as an evolving construct means that a broad understanding of both traditional and contemporary perspectives is essential for informing the work of qualitative researchers and readers of qualitative research. Table 10.1 illustrates several of the perspectives arranged chronologically available on validation in the qualitative literature. These perspectives position validation in qualitative research in terms of quantitative equivalence, postmodern and interpretive lenses, and importance of the construct, most use qualitative terms to describe validation that are distinct from quantitative terms. Some combine or synthesized many perspectives or use a metaphor for visualizing in. It is not enough to gain perspectives in terms, ultimately, these ideas are translated into practice as strategies or techniques. Among the many roles a researcher undertakes is to check the accuracy of a qualitative account. The figure provided here describes nine strategies frequently used by qualitative researchers during the process of validation, adapted from the work of Creswell and Miller and provides some general guidance about how to go about implementing these strategies. From the researchers lens. This may be done via three different methods. One, corroborating evidence through triangulation of multiple data sources means that the researcher makes use of multiple and different sources, methods, investigators, and theories to provide corroborating evidence. Two, discovering negative case analysis or disconfirming evidence means that the researcher refines working hypotheses as the inquiry advances in light of negative or rival evidence. And three, clarifying researcher bias or engaging and reflexivity is when the researcher discloses their understandings about the biases, values, and experiences, here she brings to a qualitative research study from the outset of the study so that the reader understands the position from which the researcher undertakes the inquiry. In addition to the researchers lens, participants can play an important role in the following validation strategies. One, member checking or seeking participant feedback. In this validation strategy, the researcher solicits participants views on the credibility of the findings and interpretations. Two, prolonged engagement and persistant observation in the field. Here the researcher makes filled based decisions about what is salient to the study, relevant to the purpose of the study and of interests for focus. Three, collaborating with participants, the researcher embeds opportunities for participants to be involved throughout the research process in varying ways and degrees. Including others beyond the researcher and those involved in the research can contribute in the following validation strategies. One, enabling external audits. In this validation strategy, the researcher facilitates auditing by an external consultant, the auditor, to examine both the process and the product of the account to assess their accuracy. Two, generating a rich thick description. Here are the researcher allows readers to make decisions regarding transferability because the writer describes in detail the participants or setting under study. And lastly, three, having a peer review or debriefing of the data and research process. The researcher seeks an external check by someone who was familiar with the research or the phenomenon explored in much the same spirit as the interrater reliability in quantitative research. It is advised that a researcher engage in at least two of the nine presented procedures. In any given qualitative study. The focus on reliability here will be on intercoder agreement based on the use of multiple coders to analyze transcript data. In qualitative research, reliability often refers to the stability of responses to multiple coders of datasets. It is important to develop codes and assess the reliability among coders as part of the analysis process. This practices heavily used with qualitative Health Science Research. And within the form of qualitative research in which enquirers want an external check on the highly interpretive coding process. When there are multiple coders involved, it is recommended to follow these procedures for assessing intercoder agreement, in coding of qualitative research. One, establish a common platform for coding and develop a preliminary code list. Two, develop and share the initial codebook among coders. Three, apply the codebook to additional transcripts and compare the coding across multiple researchers. Four, assess and report the intercoder agreement among researchers. And five, revise and finalize the codebook to inform further coding.
Read 4: Although validation is certainly an aspect of evaluating the quality of a study, other criteria are useful as well. Let's review three general standards and then turn to a specific criteria within each of the five approaches to qualitative research. A methodological perspective comes from Howe and Eisenhardt, who suggests that only broad, abstract standards are possible for qualitative research. The following five standards are adopted from Howe and Eisenhardt in question form for researchers to ask. Does the research questions drive the data collection and analysis rather than the collection and analysis driving the research questions. To what extent are the data collection and analysis techniques competently applied? That is, in a technical sense, are the researcher's assumptions made explicit? Does the study have overall warrant? That is, is it robust? Does it use respected theoretical explanations? And does it discuss disconformed theoretical explanations? Does the study have value in both informing and improving practice and in protecting the confidentiality, privacy, and truth telling and participants conducting in an ethical manner. That is, does it contribute to the, -so what- question and is it conducted ethically? A postmodern interpretive framework forms a second perspective from Lincoln, who thinks about the quality issues in terms of emerging criteria, establishing a criteria of fairness, sharing knowledge and fostering social action are characteristic of this perspective. This approach to quality is based on three commitments to emergent relations with respondents to a set of stances into a vision of research that enables and promotes justice. A final perspective utilizes interpretive standards of conducting qualitative research. There are multiple criteria that may be used in social science research. Substantive Contribution. Does this piece contribute to our understanding of social life? Does demonstrate a deeply grounded social scientific perspective. Does it seem true? Aesthetic merit. Does this piece succeed aesthetically? Does the use of creative analytical practices open up the texts and invite interpretive responses. Is the texts artistically shaped, satisfying, complex and not boring? Reflexivity. How has the authors subjectivity been both a producer and a product of this text. Is there self-awareness and self exposure. Does the author hold himself or herself accountable to the standards of knowing and telling of the people he or she has studied. Impact. Does this piece affect me emotionally or intellectually, generate new questions or moved me to write, try new research practices, or move me to action.
Read 5: There are various methods for assessing narrative research. One important piece of a good narrative is coherence of participants narratives. In order to assess coherence, the researcher can ask questions such as, do episodes of a life story hang together? Sections of a theoretical argument linked and consistent, are there major gaps and inconsistencies, is the interpreters analytic account persuasive. Another method for assessing quality of narratives, includes asking the five questions listed here. Does a narrative focus on the individual? Collect stories about a significant issue, develop a chronology, tell story, embed reflexivity. What criteria should be used to judge the quality of a phenomenological study. For Polkinghorne, validation refers to the notion that an ideal is well-grounded and well-supported. He presents five questions that researchers may ask themselves in an effort to assess whether or not an accurate portrait was crafted. Moreover, van Manon offers questions as a way to test phenomenology is level of validity, but also provides criteria for evaluative appraisal of phenomenological studies. Here Creswell present standards for assessing the quality of phenomenology. via five questions. Does the phenomenology articulate a clear phenomenon to study in a concise way? Convey an understanding of the philosophical question to guide the study? Used procedures of data analysis and phenomenology? Communicate the overall essence of the experience with the participants? And does it embed reflexivity throughout the study? The text offers numerous checkpoints researcher should consider when evaluating the methodological consistency of a grounded theory study. Additionally, Creswell and colleagues provide features of the general process and the relationship among the concepts researcher should look for when evaluating grounded theory study. Does the grounded theory study focused on the study of a process, an action, or an interaction as the key element in the theory? Does it integrate the coding process that works from the data to a larger theoretical model? Does it present the theoretical model in a figure or a diagram? Does it advance the story line or proposition connected with the categories in a theoretical model that presents for the questions to be answered? Use memoing throughout the process of research. And lastly, does it embed evidence of reflexivity or self-disclosure by the researcher about his or her stance and study? Unfortunately, few ethnographic resources identify criteria for quality ethnographies. Instead, the preference it seems for ethnographers is to describe the basics of no graphical studies as prolonged fieldwork that generate thick, contextual descriptions reflective of the triangulation of multiple data sources. The ethnographers Spindler and Spindler emphasize that the most important requirement for an ethnographic approach is to explain behavior from the native's point of view and to be systematic in recording the information using note-taking, tape recorders, and cameras. Presented here are seven criteria that may be used in order to identify a good ethnography. Does the ethnography convey evidence of clear identification of a culture sharing group? Specify a cultural theme that will be examined in light of this culture sharing group? Describe the cultural group in detail. Communicate themes derived from an understanding of the cultural group? Identify issues that arose in the field that reflect on the relationship between the researcher and participants. Interpretive nature of reporting and sensitivity and reciprocity in the co-creating of the account? Explain how the culture sharing group works overall? And lastly, doesn't integrate self-disclosure and reflexivity by the researcher about his or her approach in the research? With the other forms of research, there are several evaluative criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of a case study. However, presented here are consolidated criteria for evaluating a good case study. Does the case study identify the cases studied? Present rationale for the case selection? Describe the cases in detail, articulate the themes identified for the cases? Report assertions or generalizations from the case analysis? And does it embed research, reflexivity or self-disclosure about his or her position in the study?
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
The development of a research proposal is a required step in the dissertation process. Per the LUO Dissertation Handbook:
The proposal, comprised of Chapters One, Two, and Three of the dissertation, is the first formal document candidates write as part of the dissertation process. The proposal is expected to be foundational to the formal dissertation manuscript... The proposal needs to include the following: a description of the study’s purpose and significance, the research question(s) and hypothesis, and the methods (including the plans for the research
design and analysis).Thus, the purpose of this assignment is to begin preparation for the proposal defense, as required within the dissertation process.
INSTRUCTIONS
The qualitative research proposal should include the following:
Content
• Introduction: explain your research topic and question(s).
o How is it sociologically important? What perspectives and experiences do you
bring to the research? How do your beliefs (philosophical
assumptions/interpretive frameworks) guide your actions as a researcher?
• Literature review: provide what is already known or has been researched related to the
topic. (7 – 10+ research studies)
o Where are the gaps in the literature (this is where your research topic/question
should come into play)? (Be sure to speak to the philosophical
assumptions/interpretive frameworks and qualitative approaches used in these
studies).
• Methodology: explain the data collection methods (interviews, surveys, etc.) that will be
utilized to answer the research question(s).
o Which of the five qualitative approaches to inquiry will you use? In what ways
does your research approach influence the methods used for data collection and
analysis?
o How will you analyze/evaluate the data collected to inform the research question?
Structure
• Length of assignment: 16 pages total (minimum) (Introduction: 2 – 3 pgs., Literature
review: 10 – 15 pgs., Methods: 2 – 3 pgs., Title page: 1 pg., Abstract: 1 pg., Works cited:
1 pg.)
• Format of assignment: APA, 12-point, Times New Roman
• Number of references: minimum of 7
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.