Piths,Pearls,and Provocation

Abstract

Although qualitative research has considerable strengths both in assessing the effectiveness of organizational models of health care provision and in contributing to their development, its impact on local and national decision making in the United Kingdom appears to be negligible. This article examines three obstacles to the acceptance of qualitative research, illustrating some ways around them drawn from recent research at the Centre for Mental Health Services Development. However, our illustrations throw into relief the potential for tensions between the pragmatic world of health care management and the quality and integrity of qualitative research. The authors, therefore, examine these tensions with reference to recent work on the development of quality criteria and discuss some of the solutions they have attempted.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Crail, M. (1997, January 23). Urban blight. Health Service Journal, pp. 12-13.

Department of Health . (1997). The new NHS: Modern, dependable (Cm 8307). London: The Stationery Office.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. (1971). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine/Atherton.

Guba, E. , & Lincoln, Y. (1985). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responses and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Murray, P. (1997). Using virtual focus groups in research. Qualitative Health Research, 7(4), 542-549.

Norman, I. , Peck, E. , & Richards, H. (in press). Roles, responsibilities and relationships in adult mental health services. Journal of Mental Health.

Peck, E. (1995). The performance of an NHS Trust: Actors’ accounts, minutes and observation. British Journal of Management, 6(2), 135-156.

10.

Peck, E. , Smith, H. , Barker, I. , & Henderson, G. (1997). The obstacles to and opportunities for the development of mental health services in London: The perceptions of managers. In S. Johnson , R. Ramsay , G. Thornicroft , L. Brooks , P. Lelliot , E. Peck , H. Smith , D. Chisholm , B. Audini , M. Knapp , & D. Goldberg (Eds.), London’s mental health: A report to the King’s Fund London Commission (pp. 331-360). London: The King’s Fund.

11.

Popay, J. , Rogers, A. , & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341-351.

12.

Ritchie, J. , & Spenser, E. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data (pp. 174-194). London: Routledge.

13.

Secker, J. , Wimbush, E. , Watson, J. , & Milburn, K. (1995). Qualitative methods in health promotion research: Some criteria for quality. Health Education Journal, 54(1), 74-87.

14.

Silverman, D. (in press). The quality of qualitative health research: The open-ended interview and its alternatives. Social Sciences in Health.