Researcher as an instrument in qualitative study: How to avoid bias

Paper Details

Research Paper 04/04/2024
Views (137) Download (12)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Researcher as an instrument in qualitative study: How to avoid bias

Most. Fatema Khatun, Md. Akramul Haque
Int. J. Biosci.24( 4), 101-108, April 2024.
Certificate: IJB 2024 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

This article aimed to identify possible bias and discuss ways to minimize bias in qualitative research. An integrative relevant research review was done following the PRISMA flow diagram. Using keywords recent and relevant databases was searched. One hundred forty-nine articles were selected primarily from nursing, medical, social science, and educational electronic databases and relevant books. Based on relevance, seventy-two articles were selected initially and seventy-seven were excluded. Finally, based on the relevance of the methodology, twenty-three articles were selected for the integrative review related to the researcher’s bias. Based on the analysis of the findings, this article proposes that the danger of bias in subjective research as an instrument can be limited to various degrees by consolidating the experience of the subjective research by surveying the research design. To minimize bias as a novice researcher of a qualitative study, one should conduct an in-depth interview with the following (1) Read and get direction from the literary works; seek the rule and criteria to assemble the limit, raising capacity and information of leading qualitative research about how to lead in-depth interview, focus group discussion to maintain a strategic distance from bias (2) Try to include herself/himself into the qualitative research extend with expert researcher. In conclusion, this article showed ways to bias and suggested how to deal with researcher bias by combining the practical experience of a qualitative study as a novice researcher.

VIEWS 35

Burns N, Grove SK. 2003. Understanding nursing research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Company.

Casad BJ, Luebering JE. 2023. Confirmation bias. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias.

Crano  WD, Brewer MB, Lac A. 2014. Principles and methods of social research. Routledge.

Cresswell JW. 2013. Research design: A qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Sage publications.

Duncan S, Fiske DW. 2015. Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Routledge.

Fotheringham D. 2010. Triangulation for the assessment of clinical nursing skills: A review of theory, use and methodology, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, United Kingdom, International Journal of Nursing Studies 47, 386–391.

Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM. 2010. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health 25(10), 1229-45. DOI: 10.1080/08870440903194015.

Fusch P, Fusch GE, Ness LR. 2018. Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Sustainable Social Change 10(1),  2.

Gill B, Shoji M, Coen T, Place K. 2016. The content, predictive power, and potential bias in five widely used teacher observation instruments (REL 2017–191). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid- Atlantic. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Golafshani N. 2003. Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report 8(4), 597-606. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss4/6.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Murad, Glasziou P, deBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ. 2011. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64(4), 383-394.

Harris LR, Brown GT. 2019. Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 15(1),  1.

Hombrados JG, Waddington H. 2012. A tool to assess risk of bias for experiments and quasi-experiments in development   research. Mimeo. The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, New Delhi.

John M, Johnson, Timothy, Rowlands. 2012. The interpersonal dynamics of in-depth interviewing. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 99.

Mc Donnell A, Nicholl J, Read SM. 2003. Acute pain teams and the management of postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41(3), 261–273.

Mmari K, Blum R, Sonenstein F, Marshall B, Brahmbhatt H, Venables E, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, Lou C, Gao E, Acharya R, Jejeebhoy S, Sangowawa A. 2014. Adolescents’ perceptions of health from disadvantaged urban communities: Findings from the WAVE study, Social Science & Medicine 104, 124e132.

Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. 2002. Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202

Sica GT. 2006. Bias in research studies. Radiology 3, 780-789.

Simons J. 2013. An introduction to qualitative methodology. Nurse Researcher 20, 3, 28-32.

Turner III DW. 2010. Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The qualitative report 15(3), 754.

Taherdoost H. 2021. Data collection methods and tools for research; a step-by-step guide to choose data collection technique for academic and business research projects. International journal of academic research in management (IJARM) 10(1), 10-38.