Investigacin Cualitativa Verstehen Las bases Para empezar n

Investigación Cualitativa Verstehen: Las bases

Para empezar n Closed-Ended vs Open-Ended Questions. Ø Ø Ø Do you get on well with your boss? Tell me about your relationship with your boss. Who will you vote for this election? What do you think about the two candidates in this election? What colour shirt are you wearing? That's an interesting coloured shirt you're wearing.

¿Qué es? n n Entrevista = Conversación. Intento de comprender el mundo desde el punto de vista del sujeto, desentrañar el significado de la experiencia de la gente, descubrir su mundo bajo explicaciones científicas (Kyale, 1996).

Diferencias n n n Estructuración y direccionamiento del interrogatorio. Poder del interrogador. Producción de cambios en el interrogado.

Utilidad n n n Evaluación de programas con cargas individualizadas. Conocer y describir procesos de trabajo. Explorar diferencias individuales entre productos y experiencias de participantes. Comprender el significado de un progama para sus participantes. Documentar las variaciones en la implementación de un programa.

Tipos de entrevistas Patton (1990) identifica tres tipos: n La entrevista conversacional informal. n La aproximación guiada. n La entrevista abierta estandarizada. n Todas sin restricciones y con un pefil específico.

Entrevista conversacional informal n n n Espontánea, en campo. Marco contextual informal. Altamente indvidualizada y relevante. Poco sistemática y consumidora. Entrevistador experimentado y conocedor.

Aproximación guiada n n n Formato más utilizado. Guía de temas o asuntos (VDI). Libre de encontrar y seguir variaciones. Datos más significativos y comprensivos. Tono informal a cierto nivel. Difícil comparación: distintos respondientes vs distitntas preguntas.

La entrevista abierta estandarizada n n Apego a un guión estricto. Altamente estructurada y eficiente. Reduce desviaciones cuando XYZ entrevistadores. Comparación de respuestas.

Ética en la entrevista n n n Confidencialidad. Consentimiento del informante. Evaluación del riesgo. Promesas y reciprocidad. Salud mental del entrevistador.

Diseño de la entrevista n n Flexibilidad y apertura vs marco y estructura. Kyale (1996) propone 7 pasos.

1) Thematizing n Before even thinking about particular methods or interview formats, the evaluation team needs to be clear on the purpose of the study and the topic to be investigated. The questions of "why" and "what" need to be answered before the question of "how" can be answered. This is as important in a qualitative evaluation study as in a quantitative one.

2) Designing n The overall design for the study, including the later stages of analyzing and reporting, should be planned before the interviewing begins. For example, if there are no funds for transcribing or analyzing interviews, it may be wise to use a more structured format that will be easier to code later.

3) Interviewing n To an extent that is not true in many other methods, the interviewer is the instrument in this type of evaluation (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, as cited in Patton, 1987). The "instrument" can be affected by factors like fatigue, personality, and knowledge, as well as levels of skill, training, and experience.

3) Interviewing n Patton (1987) points out that any face-to-face interview is also an observation. The skilled interviewer is sensitive to nonverbal messages, effects of the setting on the interview, and nuances of the relationship. While these subjective factors are sometimes considered threats to validity, they can also be strengths because the skilled interviewer can use flexibility and insight to ensure an indepth, detailed understanding of the participant's experience.

4) Transcribing n This important step prepares the material from the interview for analysis. Both Kvale (1996) and Patton (1990) provide detailed practical suggestions for this process, ranging from ensuring that your tape recorder has good batteries to developing a sensitivity to the linguistic differences between oral speech and written text.

5) Analyzing n Data analysis is an issue that should be considered very early in the process of designing a study. Qualitative interviews and their transcripts produce a large volume of material which must be condensed, categorized or otherwise interpreted and made meaningful, and this may turn out to be one of the most costly and time-consuming aspects of the evaluation. If time and resources are limited, you may wish to use more standardized interview formats which are easier to code and interpret.

5) Analyzing n Methods for analyzing and interpreting qualitative interviews vary widely. Kvale (1996) describes five analysis methods that include 1) meaning condensation, 2) meaning categorization, 3) narrative structuring, 4) meaning interpretation, and 5) generating meaning through ad hoc methods. Patton (1987, 1990) also addresses a number of techniques for quantifiying and analyzing qualitative interview data.

5) Analyzing n The most appropriate method of analysis for any given study will depend on the purpose of your evaluation and the nature of the material, as well as the time and resources available for this part of the process. Some methods attempt to be more objective, while others depend more heavily on subjective judgements and insights of the researcher. Computer software programs are available that can assist in categorizing interview statements or counting key words, which may allow some forms of quantitative analysis.

6) Verifying n In traditional research terms, this means determining reliability (how consistent the findings are), validity (whether the study really investigates what you intended to investigate), and generalizability (whether the findings apply to anyone outside of this particular program). In qualititative studies, one important way of verifying findings or establishing validity is to actually take transcripts or analyzed results back to some of the interview participants, and ask them if this is really what they meant. Guba and Lincoln (1989) discuss the concepts of confirmability, dependability, credibility and transferability as alternative ways of ensuring quality of data in qualitative evaluations. For more in depth discussions of these important issues in qualitative research, readers are strongly encouraged to consult relevant chapters in Kvale (1996), Patton (1990), or Guba and Lincoln (1989).

7) Reporting n If the evaluation report is to effectively communicate findings, it must a) be in a form that meets some accepted scientific criteria, b) meet ethical standards such as confidentiality and respect, and c) be readable and usable for its intended audiences. In some cases, different reports may be needed for different audiences. An appropriate balance needs to be found between including endless quotations that will bore the reader and just quoting a few entertaining stories that happened to appeal to the researcher.

Referencias Kvale, S. (1996). Inter Views: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2 nd ed. ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.