Training in Qualitative Research Methods.
Research Ethics review has published a number of articles relating to qualitative research methods. In my experience, based on membership of two reearch ethics committees over several years, there are two related problems in particular which are impairing the ability of RECs to deal effectively with proposals for academic research projects. These are first the failure of some supervisors to guide and monitor their aspiring researchers, and secondly the challenge set by the large number of studies which require the skills necessary for tackling social science research.
The result has been a succession of unsatisfactory proposals, adding to committees' workloads, which have either to be rejected or approved provisionally, subject to receiving a satisfactory response to many queries and suggested amendments. This process wastes much time and energy, which could otherwise have been devoted to other, better prepared work. Moreover, outright rejections can demoralize good, aspiring researchers, and can also generate ill-feelings and resentment towards the REC. Nonetheless, proper standards have to be upheld.
I would suggest that three changes are required:
[i] compulsory training in research methods, especially qualitative methodology, for all who aim to supervise research projects. Clearly there would have to be exemptions for all those who could show satisfactory evidence of having undertaken an approved course on the subject, including the submission of written work for assessment and approval That may sound drastic, but a recent admission by a senior academic, responsible for organizing research in one university, that some supervisors had received no training at all in research methods, is disturbing. Unhappily that state of affairs is far from unique.
[ii] Since the 1980's successive governments have attempted to reform research governance and have introduced a number of requirements for monitoring progress and imposing standards, but it seems that some universities and their academic staff are still lagging. In this regard I have some personal experience. At any rate it is clear that the Government need to intensify their efforts to achieve a uniformly high standard across the country both in teaching and training in research techniques.
[iii] The National Research Ethics Service and all others involved in providing courses for REC chairmen, members, administrators , and, it is to be hoped, researchers, do provide an impressive and varied array of courses, but there are not enough on research methodologies. There should also be more of an effort to encourage people to attend these courses. Admittedly some REC members have had practical experience of medical and scientific research, but the ambit of the RECs' work in scrutinizing projects is extremely broad. Qualitative work is particularly hard to assess by those who have not had direct experience, since it concerns human emotions, thought and behaviour patterns, often having to reach decisions between conflicting opinions; demonstrable truth is seldom found - especially in the social sciences.
There should be no excuse for poorly prepared study proposals, particularly those involving qualitative methodologies, and this issue could, and should, be addressed by all those involved both in the research and the research ethics process.
Michael B. Buck.
Member, Hertfordshire REC.
The result has been a succession of unsatisfactory proposals, adding to committees' workloads, which have either to be rejected or approved provisionally, subject to receiving a satisfactory response to many queries and suggested amendments. This process wastes much time and energy, which could otherwise have been devoted to other, better prepared work. Moreover, outright rejections can demoralize good, aspiring researchers, and can also generate ill-feelings and resentment towards the REC. Nonetheless, proper standards have to be upheld.
I would suggest that three changes are required:
[i] compulsory training in research methods, especially qualitative methodology, for all who aim to supervise research projects. Clearly there would have to be exemptions for all those who could show satisfactory evidence of having undertaken an approved course on the subject, including the submission of written work for assessment and approval That may sound drastic, but a recent admission by a senior academic, responsible for organizing research in one university, that some supervisors had received no training at all in research methods, is disturbing. Unhappily that state of affairs is far from unique.
[ii] Since the 1980's successive governments have attempted to reform research governance and have introduced a number of requirements for monitoring progress and imposing standards, but it seems that some universities and their academic staff are still lagging. In this regard I have some personal experience. At any rate it is clear that the Government need to intensify their efforts to achieve a uniformly high standard across the country both in teaching and training in research techniques.
[iii] The National Research Ethics Service and all others involved in providing courses for REC chairmen, members, administrators , and, it is to be hoped, researchers, do provide an impressive and varied array of courses, but there are not enough on research methodologies. There should also be more of an effort to encourage people to attend these courses. Admittedly some REC members have had practical experience of medical and scientific research, but the ambit of the RECs' work in scrutinizing projects is extremely broad. Qualitative work is particularly hard to assess by those who have not had direct experience, since it concerns human emotions, thought and behaviour patterns, often having to reach decisions between conflicting opinions; demonstrable truth is seldom found - especially in the social sciences.
There should be no excuse for poorly prepared study proposals, particularly those involving qualitative methodologies, and this issue could, and should, be addressed by all those involved both in the research and the research ethics process.
Michael B. Buck.
Member, Hertfordshire REC.
posted by Michael Buck at 7:29 AM
0 comments
