Analysing Data With Members of a Stigmatised Community: Experiences, Reflections and Recommendations for Best Practice From the Finding the Formula Community Analysis Group

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Qualitative Methods Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/16094069241229983
Aimee Grant, Tara McNamara, Jonie Cooper, Susan Dvorak, Abbie Dolling, Rebecca Ellis, Carol McIntyre, Sara Jones, Amy Brown
{"title":"Analysing Data With Members of a Stigmatised Community: Experiences, Reflections and Recommendations for Best Practice From the Finding the Formula Community Analysis Group","authors":"Aimee Grant, Tara McNamara, Jonie Cooper, Susan Dvorak, Abbie Dolling, Rebecca Ellis, Carol McIntyre, Sara Jones, Amy Brown","doi":"10.1177/16094069241229983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Participatory research approaches hold potential to better understand society through valuing lived experience. Formula feeding babies is routinely stigmatised in the UK, despite inadequate support to facilitate breastfeeding. Our community science project investigated the safety of powdered infant formula preparation in the home through the completion of an at-home experiment and a research diary with closed and open questions ( n = 151). To add validity to the interpretation of open text data in research diaries, a community analysis group of five formula-feeding mothers was established. The community analysts undertook inductive thematic analysis through a series of analysis group meetings focused around data extracts, contributed to the study’s empirical outputs and this methodological output, meeting 23 times over a nine-month period. Detailed notes were taken during meetings and the methodological elements of these were thematically analysed with the community analysts to produce this article, with extracts from the academic researchers’ field notes added where relevant. The overarching themes, presenting both positive experiences and areas for improvement, focused on: (i) clarity of expectations and the impact this had on community analysts’ confidence, (ii) the stigmatising topic area and how this was managed by the facilitators, and (iii) feeling valued, in relation to honoraria, inclusion in outputs and community analysts coming to recognise their own expertise. Furthermore, the community analysts co-produced recommendations for including community analysts in future research. It provides guidance on how this can be appropriately costed for and supported by funding bodies and research teams, as well as providing guidance on recruitment and chairing meetings. We hope that this article can provide valuable input into how to involve the community more inclusively as research partners in qualitative analysis related to stigmatised topics.","PeriodicalId":48220,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241229983","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Participatory research approaches hold potential to better understand society through valuing lived experience. Formula feeding babies is routinely stigmatised in the UK, despite inadequate support to facilitate breastfeeding. Our community science project investigated the safety of powdered infant formula preparation in the home through the completion of an at-home experiment and a research diary with closed and open questions ( n = 151). To add validity to the interpretation of open text data in research diaries, a community analysis group of five formula-feeding mothers was established. The community analysts undertook inductive thematic analysis through a series of analysis group meetings focused around data extracts, contributed to the study’s empirical outputs and this methodological output, meeting 23 times over a nine-month period. Detailed notes were taken during meetings and the methodological elements of these were thematically analysed with the community analysts to produce this article, with extracts from the academic researchers’ field notes added where relevant. The overarching themes, presenting both positive experiences and areas for improvement, focused on: (i) clarity of expectations and the impact this had on community analysts’ confidence, (ii) the stigmatising topic area and how this was managed by the facilitators, and (iii) feeling valued, in relation to honoraria, inclusion in outputs and community analysts coming to recognise their own expertise. Furthermore, the community analysts co-produced recommendations for including community analysts in future research. It provides guidance on how this can be appropriately costed for and supported by funding bodies and research teams, as well as providing guidance on recruitment and chairing meetings. We hope that this article can provide valuable input into how to involve the community more inclusively as research partners in qualitative analysis related to stigmatised topics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与受鄙视群体成员一起分析数据:寻找公式社区分析小组的经验、反思和最佳实践建议
参与式研究方法具有通过重视生活经验来更好地了解社会的潜力。在英国,尽管没有足够的支持来促进母乳喂养,但用配方奶粉喂养婴儿却经常受到鄙视。我们的社区科学项目通过完成一项家庭实验和一份包含封闭式和开放式问题的研究日记(n = 151),调查了在家中配制婴儿配方粉的安全性。为了增加研究日记中开放文本数据解读的有效性,成立了一个由五位配方奶粉喂养母亲组成的社区分析小组。社区分析员通过一系列以数据摘录为中心的分析小组会议进行归纳式专题分析,在 9 个月的时间里召开了 23 次会议,为研究的经验产出和本方法产出做出了贡献。我们在会议期间做了详细记录,并与社区分析人员一起对其中的方法要素进行了专题分析,从而撰写了本文,并在相关情况下添加了学术研究人员的实地记录摘录。总的主题既有积极的经验,也有需要改进的地方,主要集中在:(i) 期望的明确性以及这对社区分析师信心的影响,(ii) 具有污名化的主题领域以及主持人如何处理这一问题,(iii) 在酬金、成果的纳入以及社区分析师逐渐认识到自己的专业知识等方面感受到自己的价值。此外,社区分析师还共同提出了将社区分析师纳入未来研究的建议。它就如何适当计算成本并得到资助机构和研究团队的支持提供了指导,并就招聘和主持会议提供了指导。我们希望这篇文章能为如何让社区作为研究伙伴更广泛地参与与污名化主题相关的定性分析提供有价值的意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
International Journal of Qualitative Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal Highlights Impact Factor: 5.4 Ranked 5/110 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary – SSCI Indexed In: Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Scopus Launched In: 2002 Publication is subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) Submit here International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) is a peer-reviewed open access journal which focuses on methodological advances, innovations, and insights in qualitative or mixed methods studies. Please see the Aims and Scope tab for further information.
期刊最新文献
Investigating Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity: How Meta-Ethnography Contributes to the Study of Collaborative Research Practices Applying the Visual-Verbal Video Analysis Framework to Understand How Mental Illness is Represented in the TV Show Euphoria “Navigating the In-Between: A Cross-Cultural Researcher’s Fluid Positionality in West Africa” Dealing With Scam in Online Qualitative Research: Strategies and Ethical Considerations Participatory Health Research With Women From Refugee, Asylum-Seeker, and Migrant Backgrounds Living in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1