Developing theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory action research study

Qualitative Health Research

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 701-717

  Westhues, Anne ^a   Ochocka, Joanna ^b   Jacobson, Nora ^c,d   Simich, Laura ^c,d   Maiter, Sarah ^e   Janzen, Rich ^b   Fleras, Augie ^f  

^a WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Centre for Community Based Research Ontario   (Canada)

^c CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Complexity; Critical methods; Cultural competence; Grounded theory; Knowledge construction; Mental health and illness; Mixed methods; Multiple methods; Participatory action research (PAR)

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMMUNITY CARE; COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CULTURAL COMPETENCE; CULTURAL FACTOR; GROUNDED THEORY; HEALTH SURVEY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MENTAL DISEASE; MENTAL HEALTH; MENTAL HEALTH CARE; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; METHODOLOGY; PILOT STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TEAMWORK; THEORY CONSTRUCTION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH;

EID: 42249111552     PISSN: 10497323     EISSN: 15527557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1049732308316531     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anderson, S.E., & Gansneder, B.M. (1995). Using electronic mail surveys and computer monitored data for studying computer mediated communication systems. Social Science Computer Review, 13(1), 33-46.
2. Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207.
3. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed. (pp. 507-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Community University Research Alliance. (2005). International literature review. Waterloo, ON: Centre for Research and Education in Human Services.
6. Community University Research Alliance. (2006). Conference proceedings. First CURA conference: Towards cultural empowerment. Waterloo, ON: Centre for Research and Education in Human Services.
7. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Dewa, C., Durbin, J., Wasylenki, D., Ochocka, J., Estabrook, S., Boydell, K., et al. (2002). Considering a multi-site study? How to take the leap and have a soft landing. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 173-187.
9. Ezzy, D. (2003). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.
10. Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
12. Goering, P., & Streiner, D.L. (1996). Reconcilable differences: The marriage of qualitative and quantitative methods. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 41, 491-497.
13. Grant, J. (2006). Multi-layered responses to cultural-linguistic diversity in mental health services: A report of key informant interviews. CURA internal document. Waterloo, ON: Centre for Research and Education on Human Services.
14. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
15. Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Resources Information Center Annual Review Paper, 29, 75-91.
16. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from fmx.sagepub.com/ cgi/content/abtarct/18/1/58#BIBL
17. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Hamilton, M.B. (2003). Online survey response rates and times. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from www.supersurvey.com/papers/ supersurvey_white_paper_response_rates.pdf
19. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
20. Jacobson, N., Ochocka, J., Wise, J., Janzen, R., & Taking Culture Seriously Partners. (2007). Inspiring knowledge mobilization through a communications policy: The case of a Community University Research Alliance. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 1 (1).
21. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. (pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action in the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 3 rd ed. (pp. 559-603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Kirby, S.L., Greaves, L., & Reid, C. (2006). Experience research social change: Methods beyond the mainstream. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
24. Kittleson, M.J. (1995). A quasi-experimental assessment of the response rate via the postal service and e-mail. Health Values, 19(2), 27-39.
25. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
26. Kuzel, A. (1992) Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 31-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27. Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 19-40.
28. Marra, R.M., & Bogue, B. (2006). A critical assessment of online survey tools. Proceedings of the 2006 Women in Engineering Programs and Advocates Network Conference. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from www.igert.org/pdf/Critical_Assmt_Online_Tools_Wepan_070606.pdf
29. Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 429-439.
30. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Moorlag, E. (2006). Understandings and perspectives of mental health in a multicultural Canada: Focus group data from five cultural-linguistic groups. Taking culture seriously in community mental health CURA. Waterloo, ON: Centre for Education and Research on Human Services.
32. Morse, J.M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multi-method research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Nelson, G., Ochocka, J., Griffin, K., & Lord, J. (1998). Nothing about me, without me: Participatory action research with self-help/ mutual aid organizations for psychiatric consumer/survivors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 881-912.
34. Neuber, K.A. (1980). Needs assessment: A model for community planning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35. Ochocka, J., & Janzen, R. (in press). Blending commitment, passion and structure: Engaging cultural-linguistic communities in collaborative research. In A. Williamson & R. DeSouza (Eds.), Researching with communities. Waitakere City, New Zealand: Wairua Press.
36. Ochocka, J., Nelson, G., & Janzen R. (2005). Moving forward: Negotiating self and external circumstances in recovery. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 28(4), 315- 322.
37. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Schuldt, B.A., & Totten, J.W. (1994). Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research, 6(1), 36-39.
39. Shadish, W.R., Jr., Cook, T.D., & Leviton, L.C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Thagard, P., & Shelley, C. (1997). Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking and coherence. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html
43. Tse, A. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: E-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40(4), 353-361.
44. Worren, N., Moore, K., & Elliott, R. (2002). When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, 55(10), 1227-1250.
45. Yun, G.W., & Trumbo, C.W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail and web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved February 13, 2008, from www.jcmc.indiana.edu