Infant mortality is a big health priority in Akron, OH, about 20 minutes from Kent where Iive and work. The Beacon Journal - which is a great newspaper in my opinion, by the way - has been covering the efforts of a task force to address this issue. There were 30 infant deaths last year, according to the paper. The report went on to provide some statistical analyses including the conclusion that when poverty is 'controlled for,' then race (Black) is the strongest predictor.
Aside from what I see as some conceptual issues with assuming that race is a factor that can be 'controlled for' - so does not confound or influence other issues, and that 30 is barely a large enough sample to apply some modeling techniques (this assumes that there was some subgroup analysis and not an effort to apply the findings from larger analysis to the subgroup) - what I wonder is why no one seems to be thoroughly investigating those 30 cases, to look for answers that might be both more complex and more helpful than to ascribe this to race and racism, the latter being the conclusion based on the association with race. This is not my attempt to deny that race or race-associated issues are influential. I spent enough years in the south to observe what I consider profound differences in opportunity for birth control and pre-natal care that varied by race (or residence which was essentially the same thing). But I think to be truly culturally aware requires having in depth understanding of the type that qualitative inquiry encourages- this means talking with people about their lives, the practices, their priorities - rather than staying at arm's length to do math on fixed response 'data.' I have felt a qual/quan divide increasingly in recent months but I offer that fixation on surveys and numbers does not appear to have helped researcher make a lot of progress in understanding some of the pressing issues in my region that include an opioid epidemic, infant mortality, and, surprisingly to me, a seeming re-emergence of cocaine use among young people.
0 Comments
.Despite having this blog in which I sometimes say what I think about research, especially qualitative inquiry, I still experience a little hesitation as I presume to be an expert. After all, there are many people who have spent a great many years in study and conduct of qualitative inquiry (although sometimes I think we all do a lot more qualitative inquiry throughout our livew- even when not calling it that - than we are aware of).
But lately I have heard a lot about focus group research so I am going to offer some of my own thoughts about this data collection method. I offer these thoughts with the awareness that I am most likely repeating some or all of prior posts because, after all, I have been writing and ranting on this space for nearly five years now! First, in my view and based on my own experience, a focus group interview, or focussed group interview, or group interview, or focus group (without the word 'interview') is a method of collecting qualitative data. There is no standardized set of directions associated with the process, nor are there assumptions that are so conveniently available (although often overlooked) for people who are running statistical models. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|