Clarifying researchers’ subjectivity in qualitative addiction research

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Egerer, Michael
dc.contributor.author Hellman, Matilda
dc.date.accessioned 2021-02-24T10:29:01Z
dc.date.available 2021-02-24T10:29:01Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.identifier.citation Egerer , M & Hellman , M 2020 , ' Clarifying researchers’ subjectivity in qualitative addiction research ' , International Journal on Alcohol and Drug Research , vol. 8 , no. 2 , pp. 81-87 . https://doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.261
dc.identifier.other PURE: 140354362
dc.identifier.other PURE UUID: c245611e-97c5-4e2a-bb5f-318863d8939b
dc.identifier.other WOS: 000604048900005
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0002-3983-4489/work/89579413
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0001-8884-8601/work/89583786
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10138/326989
dc.description.abstract Aim: In addiction research, non-constructionist traditions often question the validity and reliability of qualitative efforts. This study presents techniques that are helpful for qualitative researchers in dissecting and clarifying their subjective interpretations. Methods: We discuss three courses of action for inspecting researchers’ interpretations when analysing focus-group interviews: (i) adapted summative content analysis, (ii) quantification of researchers’ expectations; and, (iii) speaker positions. While well-known methodological techniques in their own rights, we demonstrate how they can be used to complement one another. Results: Quantifications are easy and expeditious verification techniques, but they demand additional investigation of speaker positions. A combination of these techniques can strengthen validity and reliability without compromising the nature of constructionist and inductive enquiries. Conclusions: The three techniques offer valuable support for the communication of qualitative work in addiction research. It allows researchers to assess and understand their own initial impressions during data collection and raw analysis. In addition, they also serve in making researchers’ subjectivity more transparent. All of this, without abandoning subjectivity, but rather making sense of it. en
dc.format.extent 7
dc.language.iso eng
dc.relation.ispartof International Journal on Alcohol and Drug Research
dc.rights cc_by_nc_nd
dc.rights.uri info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject 5141 Sociology
dc.subject 5142 Social policy
dc.title Clarifying researchers’ subjectivity in qualitative addiction research en
dc.type Article
dc.contributor.organization Centre for Research on Addiction, Control and Governance
dc.description.reviewstatus Peer reviewed
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.261
dc.relation.issn 1925-7066
dc.rights.accesslevel openAccess
dc.type.version publishedVersion

Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
261_Main_docume ... end_1685_2_10_20201223.pdf 512.1Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record