Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Healthcare Simulation Research pp 79–83Cite as

Refining Your Qualitative Approach in Healthcare Simulation Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2162 Accesses

Abstract

A knowledge of potential research approaches is foundational to the execution of acceptable scholarship within the qualitative domain. The presence or absence of an adequately defined theory based approach within the research can lead to divergent outcomes (i.e. rejection versus acceptance) in publishable academic writing. Therefore, the selection of a quality approach and its subsequent integration throughout the fabric of a research endeavor is critical to the success of any qualitative research process. This process naturally applies to simulation research in its many dimensions. In this chapter, we introduce various theoretical and conceptual perspectives to generate further understanding and preparation for qualitative research. Exploration of a few qualitative research approaches will be presented. The process used to select the qualitative approach will be discussed with a view toward how such an approach can be integrated into a qualitative research study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bell J. Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Green HE. Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Res. 2014;21(6):34–8. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.34.e1252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Merriam SB. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schultz JG. Developing theoretical models/conceptual frameworks in vocational education research. J Vocat Educ. 1988;13:29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Astalin AK. Qualitative research designs: a conceptual framework. Int J Soc Sci Interdiscip Res. 2013;2(1):118–24.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Camp WG. Formulating and evaluating theoretical frameworks for career and technical education research. J Vocat Educ Res. 2001;26(1):27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blumer H, Denzin N. Symbolic interactionism. In: Smith J, Harre R, Langenhove L, editors. Rethinking psychology. Newbury Park: Sage; 1995. p. 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Smitten J. Nurse educators preparing for the use of high-fidelity human patient simulation: a process of finding their way [PhD dissertation] [Edmonton (AB)] University of Alberta 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.era.library.ualberta.ca.efbb92eb.

  9. Glaser BG. Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1(2):23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Glaser BG. Grounded theory review. Mill Valley: Sociology Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basic of qualitative research: technique and techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chenitz WC, Swanson JM. From practice to grounded theory: qualitative research in nursing. Melon Park: Addison-Wesley; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Parker B, Myrick F. The grounded theory method: deconstruction and reconstruction in a human patient simulation context. Int J Qual Methods. 2011;10(1):73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Edu. 2005;4(2):193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Duran LB, Duran E. The 5E instructional model: a learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. Sci Educ Rev. 2004;3(2):49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shapira-Lishchinsky O. Simulation-based constructivist approach for education leaders. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2014:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McHaney R, Reiter L, Reychav I. Immersive simulation in constructivist-based classroom E-learning. Int J E-Learn. 2018;17(1):39–64. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 28, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/149930/

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Racine: The Johnson Foundation, Inc., Wingspread; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Molasso WR. Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. J Coll Charact. 7:7. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1246.

  21. Willis JW. Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage; 2007. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230108.n5.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Grant C, Osanloo A. Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: creating the blueprint for your ‘house. Adm Issues J: Connect Educ Pract Res. 2014;4(2):1–16. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Munhall P, Chenail R. Qualitative research proposals and reports: a guide. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Denzin N, Lincoln Y. The SAFE handbook of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Maxwell J. Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Health and Society, Experiential Simulation Learning Center, Hawai’i Pacific University, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Jayne Smitten

Authors
  1. Jayne Smitten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jayne Smitten .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash Institute for Health and Clinical Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Debra Nestel

  2. Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Joshua Hui

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Kevin Kunkler

  4. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Mark W. Scerbo

  5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA

    Aaron W. Calhoun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Smitten, J. (2019). Refining Your Qualitative Approach in Healthcare Simulation Research. In: Nestel, D., Hui, J., Kunkler, K., Scerbo, M., Calhoun, A. (eds) Healthcare Simulation Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation