Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative Research Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Success in Academic Surgery: Health Services Research

Part of the book series: Success in Academic Surgery ((SIAS))

Abstract

This is a short introduction to the field of qualitative investigation. There are many methodologies and methods that support rigorous qualitative research, however, there are many controversies about the “right way” to do qualitative research and how qualitative research should be defined and judged. In this space, it is impossible to do more than provide a general overview of study design, instruments for qualitative data collection and introductory guidance for analytic processes. Many of the references cited provide excellent examples of rigorous qualitative work in the medical literature and will expose the reader to multiple options for future study design and execution.

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

Access this chapter

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hu YY, Arriaga AF, et al. Protecting patients from an unsafe system: the etiology and recovery of intraoperative deviations in care. Ann Surg. 2012;256(2):203–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, et al. Patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. JAMA. 2003;289(8):1001–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, et al. A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: why do some hospitals succeed? JAMA. 2001;285(20):2604–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Robinson JC, Casalino LP. Vertical integration and organizational networks in health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 1996;15(1):7–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33(7):14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee CN, Hultman CS, et al. What are patients’ goals and concerns about breast reconstruction after mastectomy? Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64(5):567–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwarze ML, Bradley CT, et al. Surgical “buy-in”: the contractual relationship between surgeons and patients that influences decisions regarding life-supporting therapy. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):843–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Early steps in analysis. In: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1994. p. 50–89.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Neuman MD, Bosk CL. What we talk about when we talk about risk: refining surgery’s hazards in medical thought. Milbank Q. 2012;90(1):135–59.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steinman MA, Bero LA, et al. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):284–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Curlin FA, Dinner SN, et al. Of more than one mind: obstetrician-gynecologists’ approaches to morally controversial decisions in sexual and reproductive healthcare. J Clin Ethics. 2008;19(1):11–21; discussion 22–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Frosch DL, May SG, et al. Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(5):1030–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bosk CL. Introduction. In: Forgive and remember. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cassell J, Buchman TG, et al. Surgeons, intensivists, and the covenant of care: administrative models and values affecting care at the end of life–updated. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(5):1551–7; discussion 1557–1559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. O’Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen J, Johnson PE, Rush WA, Blitz G. Clinical inertia and outpatient medical errors. In: Henriken K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI, editors. Advances in patient safety: from research to implementation. Vol 2: Concepts and methodology, vol. 2. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005. p. 293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Karsh BT, Holden RJ, et al. A human factors engineering paradigm for patient safety: designing to support the performance of the healthcare professional. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15 Suppl 1:i59–65.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Murphy E, Dingwall R, et al. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(16): iii–ix, 1–274.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marrow SL. Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):250–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuper A, Lingard L, et al. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a1035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Landmark Papers

  • Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, et al. A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: why do some hospitals succeed? JAMA. 2001;285(20):2604–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell J, Buchman TG, et al. Surgeons, intensivists, and the covenant of care: administrative models and values affecting care at the end of life–updated. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(5):1551–7; discussion 1557–1559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, et al. Patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. JAMA. 2003;289(8):1001–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, G5/315 CSC, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792-3236, USA

    Margaret L. Schwarze

Authors
  1. Margaret L. Schwarze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret L. Schwarze .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Chair for Faculty Development, Department of Surgery, Henry King Ransom Professor of Surgery Chief, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Justin B. Dimick

  2. Associate Professor of Surgery, WARF Professor of Surgical Research Director, Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research (WiSOR), Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Caprice C. Greenberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schwarze, M.L. (2014). Qualitative Research Methods. In: Dimick, J., Greenberg, C. (eds) Success in Academic Surgery: Health Services Research. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4718-3_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4718-3_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4717-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4718-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation