Warren-Findlow J. (2013). Qualitative research in JG:SS—“I’ll take a side of coleslaw with that.” The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), 407–408,
doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt017. Advance Access publication March 22, 2013
Guest Editorial
Qualitative Research in JG:SS—“I’ll Take a Side
of Coleslaw With That”
A
s a qualitative researcher and reviewer, I have had the
pleasure of reviewing many qualitative manuscripts
for journals in the fields of aging, health, the social and
behavioral sciences, and qualitative methodology. Sadly,
I’m not reviewing as many qualitative manuscripts as
I would like for JG:SS. The reason for this editorial is to
encourage authors to submit qualitative manuscripts to the
journal. I offer some useful guidelines on writing up qualitative studies.
Qualitative research has the opportunity to contribute to
theory development, to allow us to experience the voices
of marginalized individuals, and to understand the thinking and processes that people undertake in their everyday
lives about events, both miniscule and life changing. The
visual and textual data presented in qualitative manuscripts
are frequently more accessible and thought provoking about
paths our research might take with this deeper understanding of humankind, among both young and old, and the context in which they live their lives. Perhaps especially with
older adults, a well-written qualitative study can situate the
reader with an older adult, observing her prepare a meal or
negotiating a staircase, interacting with family and friends
to receive support. Thus, we obtain a deeper comprehension of older adults’ challenges and frailties in a way that
extends beyond a statistical analysis.
Qualitative research allows us to experience the muddle
and messiness of aging. As an example, when completing my dissertation research with older African American
women who were diagnosed with early-stage heart disease,
I needed to reschedule a third interview with a participant
to morning instead of afternoon. During the course of our
interview, she mentioned that she had needed to get up at
5 a.m. for this interview at 10 a.m. “Why?” I asked puzzled. Because of the many medications she was taking,
she wanted to make sure that she would not experience
any embarrassing side effects when I was with her. These
side effects turned out to be gastrointestinal requiring her
to stay close to a bathroom for several hours after taking the
pills. “But I could have switched to another day in the afternoon!” I was crestfallen to think that I had inconvenienced
her. Her response suggested to me that I hadn’t established
sufficient rapport for her to feel comfortable postponing.
But, in retrospect, perhaps our rapport was so strong that
she was willing to get up that early because she wanted to
talk to me; she needed the social support that was provided
from engaging in these interviews. This close engagement
with research participants is part of the joy of conducting
qualitative research. Further, this particular example highlights an aspect of coping with multiple chronic illnesses
that is not evident in quantitative research. Our complex statistical models allow us to isolate and control for the effects
of multiple medications and multimorbidity but not to comprehend the everyday reality.
Despite the fact that JG:SS predominantly publishes
quantitative articles, the editorial board would be happy to
have a shift in the quantitative-qualitative balance. JG:SS
and many other journals have a stable of qualitative reviewers who are not as busy as we’d like them to be.
To provide some aid and assistance to qualitative authors,
I offer some advice on structuring a qualitative manuscript
(forgive the barbecue metaphors but summer is around the
corner). I frequently find myself offering these same comments to qualitative authors:
1. Embrace the use of qualitative research methods. There
are formative research questions that are more suited to
qualitative methods; there is no need to apologize for
your choice of method. Avoid using quantitative terms
such as internal and external validity, statistically representative, or generalizability, these are not appropriate to
qualitative research. The use of quantitative nomenclature raises questions in the minds of the reviewer about
whether you really understood what you were doing.
2. Situate the relevance of your research question to the
field of aging and social sciences, so that it is obvious
that your topic is a “fit” with JG:SS. Despite the adventurous nature of Southern cuisine, not all foods lend
themselves to barbecue.
3. Ground your study in its contribution to theory. Although
many forms of qualitative research are not theory-driven,
they often extend our understanding of theory and theoretical concepts; thus, the findings should be related to
existing theory and pose new directions for the reader’s
consideration.
4. Thick, rich, description is the hallmark of qualitative
research. The reader should have a solid understanding
of the study as it relates to the participants, why their
insights are important, their lives, and where they live
them. An illustration of their lives should unfold for the
reader the way you can smell the barbecue sauce at a
Southern church picnic. Can’t get barbecued ribs out of
your mind, can you? This leads me to my next point … © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
407
408
Warren-Findlow
5. Setting provides important context for the reader. Tell
us where the research was conducted, the city/state/
country, and perhaps something about the social and
economic or cultural climate. To continue with our
barbecue metaphor, there are regional differences in
barbecue sauce (tomato-based, thick, thin, wet, dry,
sugary, vinegary, or mustardy). Where you live, will
determine what smell barbecue conjures up for you.
When writing about older adults, how is it for them to
live their lives in that community? If the research was
conducted in a nursing home, describe that nursing
home; if the study was conducted in a clinical setting,
tell us about it—where is it situated? Who receives their
health care there?
6. Describe the research team. Who were the chefs? What
is their background and training? This information
helps the reader understand what perspectives you are
bringing to the topic at hand—the lens through which
you are viewing the participants and their words and
actions. That perspective has value. Although in the
quantitative sciences the goal is to be objective, in qualitative research our aim is to bring fresh insights that
will deepen our understanding of the problem. In some
instances, race, gender, and position may also be valuable to provide.
7. Discuss how sampling occurred. How did you gain
entrée to your participants? Provide evidence that
rapport was established. Qualitative research is more
intimate and requires a greater connection with each
individual participant. How can you be confident that
participants were forthcoming and truthful, as they
saw it? Barbecue recipes are often closely held family
secrets, how do you know that the recipe they gave you
is the real one?
8. Describe how the data were generated: interviews, focus
groups, observation, field notes, reflexive journal, diaries, photo albums, blogs, or chat rooms. Explain the
level of interaction with the participants and how you
knew when you had sufficient data to answer your
research question.
9. Summarize the process you used to work with the
data—coding, categorizing, and analyzing. Was the
process guided by a particular methodological orientation such as grounded theory or ethnography? Tell the
reader which members of the research team participated
in analyzing the data. How was that process managed,
how was consensus achieved, and how was a theme or
interpretation determined?
10. Giving your participants voice is an essential element
of qualitative research. It is particularly important to
present a variety of quotes and voices to demonstrate
the depth and consistency of the themes that you are
presenting. I am always concerned when the authors’
description of the theme is much longer than any of
the quotes that provide the evidence for the theme.
The sauce should speak for itself. If a theme needs that
much interpretation to explain it, perhaps it is more the
authors’ overlaying their ideas rather than the participants’ voices that are being presented.
11. Rigor encompasses the ideas of credibility, confirmability, transparency, transferability, triangulation, and
so forth (see Lincoln & Guba, 1985 for a primer). These
concepts are endemic to qualitative research, yet few
authors take the space to demonstrate their understanding of these concepts or that they have applied them
to their research conduct. I cannot emphasize enough
the need to describe the systematic approach used to
conduct your study in terms of design, sampling, coding, analysis, and interpretation. Although qualitative
researchers often let participants guide the flow of the
conversation, that flexibility does not mean we didn’t
have a reason for going down that path. Describing
these decision paths is part of the rigor of qualitative
methodology. Making a detour to check out a previously unknown barbecue shack is never a mistake, as
long as you document why you went and where it was.
12. Conclude by situating your thick, rich, gooey, messy
findings within the literature. Guide your readers as to
how they can best utilize this new, vivid information
as they move forward. Consider both quantitative and
qualitative research suggestions.
I offer these ideas without reference or preference for any
specific qualitative tradition or method. One well-conducted
focus group can offer a wealth of credible information;
much depends on the authors’ ability to convey the research
with sufficient knowledge and rigor of the underlying tenets
of qualitative methods. Please accept this invitation to submit your next qualitative manuscript to JG:SS. We welcome
your submission (BYOR—bring your own ribs).
Reference
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage
Publications.
Jan Warren-Findlow, PhD
Associate Editor, Qualitative Research