eprintid: 10019291
rev_number: 11
eprint_status: archive
userid: 587
dir: disk0/00/01/92/91
datestamp: 2014-10-21 13:17:46
lastmod: 2017-12-07 21:34:21
status_changed: 2014-10-21 13:17:46
type: thesis
metadata_visibility: show
creators_name: Harden, Angela
title: 'Qualitative' research, systematic reviews, and evidence-informed policy and practice
ispublished: unpub
divisions: B14
keywords: Qualitative research,Evaluation
note: Leaves 333-366 are appendices
abstract: This thesis makes a distinctive contribution to debates about how to include and quality assess `qualitative' research in systematic reviews. It analyses sets of quality criteria, assesses the impact of study quality on findings and compares `quantitative' and `qualitative' perspectives on quality. The research consists of a review of the literature and three new methodological studies. The first study surveyed and evaluated quality assessment tools, the second analysed the development of a new tool, and the third examined the relationship between the quality of `qualitative' research and the findings of systematic reviews.
A large number of different quality criteria have been proposed for `qualitative' research but assessment tools represent 'good practice' guides rather than aids to distinguish between `good' and `bad' studies. Continuous funding, a policy-focussed context, and a multi-disciplinary team which viewed research questions as drivers for quality assessment were important factors for developing a unique tool which did help to distinguish between studies. There was no straightforward relationship between study quality and the findings of reviews. However, excluding lower quality studies had little impact on review findings. Studies which made the biggest contribution to reviews were those with appropriate methods for the review question and findings displaying conceptual depth. In contrast to procedures for `quantitative' research, engaging with study findings as well as study methods is important for assessing fully the quality of `qualitative' research.
This thesis generates important empirical evidence for debates about how to assess the quality of `qualitative' research. It shows how standard quality assessment protocols need to be altered better to fit `qualitative' research, reveals how study quality can impact on review findings and demonstrates some problems with the terms `qualitative' and `quantitative'. Future debate in this area should focus on how to identify reliable answers to questions about intervention process, context and need.
date: 2007
date_type: completed
oa_status: green
thesis_class: doctoral_open
language: eng
primo: open
primo_central: open_green
full_text_status: public
pres_type: paper
pages: 366
institution: Institute of Education, University of London
thesis_type: Doctoral
citation:        Harden, Angela;      (2007)    'Qualitative' research, systematic reviews, and evidence-informed policy and practice.                   Doctoral thesis , Institute of Education, University of London.     Green open access   
 
document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10019291/1/443730.pdf