Developing and conducting appreciative inquiry interviews.

IF 1 Q3 NURSING Nurse Researcher Pub Date : 2021-12-09 Epub Date: 2021-10-27 DOI:10.7748/nr.2021.e1811
Fiona Arundell, Athena Sheehan, Kath Peters
{"title":"Developing and conducting appreciative inquiry interviews.","authors":"Fiona Arundell,&nbsp;Athena Sheehan,&nbsp;Kath Peters","doi":"10.7748/nr.2021.e1811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The appreciative inquiry (AI) interview follows a specific format and needs to be planned and developed before implementation. AI questions are designed to draw on the interviewee's experiences, commencing with general questioning and progressing to more focused questioning.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explain how to plan and undertake AI interviews, and to discuss issues that nurse researchers might encounter.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This article is based on the first author's experience of undertaking an AI doctoral study. The primary method of collecting data for the study was AI interviews. The more focused questioning related to participants' experiences of positive actions or behaviours. Although questioning was positive in nature and participant-centric, conducting the interviews was more problematic than the first author anticipated. Some participants struggled to recall positive memories to share.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The unexpected response to the interview questions required the first author to examine her practices, as well as beliefs and judgements relating to AI. This reflexivity assisted in implementing changes to the study's process, resulting in a more positive experience for her and the participants.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>Researchers using the AI interview require the capacity to be self-critical and change the process if necessary to enrich the outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":47412,"journal":{"name":"Nurse Researcher","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nurse Researcher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2021.e1811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The appreciative inquiry (AI) interview follows a specific format and needs to be planned and developed before implementation. AI questions are designed to draw on the interviewee's experiences, commencing with general questioning and progressing to more focused questioning.

Aim: To explain how to plan and undertake AI interviews, and to discuss issues that nurse researchers might encounter.

Discussion: This article is based on the first author's experience of undertaking an AI doctoral study. The primary method of collecting data for the study was AI interviews. The more focused questioning related to participants' experiences of positive actions or behaviours. Although questioning was positive in nature and participant-centric, conducting the interviews was more problematic than the first author anticipated. Some participants struggled to recall positive memories to share.

Conclusion: The unexpected response to the interview questions required the first author to examine her practices, as well as beliefs and judgements relating to AI. This reflexivity assisted in implementing changes to the study's process, resulting in a more positive experience for her and the participants.

Implications for practice: Researchers using the AI interview require the capacity to be self-critical and change the process if necessary to enrich the outcome.

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
发展并进行赞赏式问询面谈。
背景:赞赏式询问(AI)访谈遵循特定的格式,需要在实施前进行计划和开发。人工智能问题旨在借鉴受访者的经验,从一般性问题开始,逐步发展到更集中的问题。目的:解释如何计划和进行人工智能访谈,并讨论护士研究人员可能遇到的问题。讨论:本文基于第一作者从事人工智能博士研究的经历。该研究收集数据的主要方法是人工智能访谈。更集中的问题与参与者积极行动或行为的经历有关。虽然提问本质上是积极的,以参与者为中心,但进行访谈比第一作者预期的更有问题。一些参与者很难回忆起积极的记忆来分享。结论:对采访问题的意外回应要求第一作者检查她的实践,以及与人工智能有关的信念和判断。这种反身性有助于对研究过程进行更改,从而为她和参与者带来更积极的体验。对实践的启示:使用人工智能访谈的研究人员需要有自我批评的能力,并在必要时改变过程以丰富结果。
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
Nurse Researcher
Nurse Researcher NURSING-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Additionally, the website provides a range of Internet links to the latest research news, conference information, jobs and grants, and other resources. We hope that this site becomes an invaluable interactive resource for both novice and experienced researchers. If you have any comments or suggestions to improve the site, or details of additional websites that could be usefully added, please let us know. We very much welcome your ideas so that we can provide the kind of online resource that will best help you to develop your research.
期刊最新文献
Theoretical sensitivity and reflexivity in grounded theory. The methodological challenges faced when conducting hydration research in UK care homes. Reflections on being an insider researcher: a study exploring the experiences of men accessing rural mental health services. A reflection on the use of virtual nominal group technique in health policy and research priority consensus studies. A worked example of contextualising and using reflexive thematic analysis in nursing research.
×
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