The
qualitative research paper I have chosen this week is written by: C Lister, J West, R Richards, B
Crookston, P Cougar Hall, A Redelfs (2013), and it is called “Technology for health: A qualitative study
on barriers to using the iPad for diet change”.
The study investigates if iPads are an effective
tool when wanting to change somebody’s diet behaviors. The authors used focus group (n=20) of college
students who were all given an iPad for three weeks including some AppStore
credit with the instructions to investigate apps (both free as well as pay-apps)
in order to help them change their eating patterns. After the three week
evaluation period, four focus group discussions were held.
The outcome of the study was that the iPad was conceived
as too large to bring with you every day in order to report on your food intake.
The focus group would have preferred a smartphone with a more convenient size,
and which is something you anyway carry with you at all times. The apps were
also perceived as either too intensive (cumbersome) or not intensive enough,
which might indicate that a new design of these apps are needed.
The
qualitative method in this paper was four group discussions sessions, using two
moderators. The main methodological issue with this study is that all test
persons were college students, which likely means that they are comfortable
with digital information and apps. This study was done on the first generation
of iPads, and it seems as it was the first iPad experience for the test
persons. However I think that there would have been a much larger threshold for
older generation users to even find and start using these apps. Also it is not
clear if the authors have made individual interviews, but it would have been constructive
to do so. Some test persons might be affected of the views and ideas of the
other people in the group. Test persons might also find it difficult to talk
freely in a larger crowd.
The case study I chose to read was: Lin, Liang, Yang, Tsai
(2013), “Exploring middle-aged and older adults’ sources of Internet
self-efficacy: A case study”.
This study
was about the perceived Internet self-efficacy (= självupplevd förmåga) of a
group of older people trying to learn to use a computer and internet. It was
designed as a set of instructional activities aimed at helping these novice computer
users to get basic computer skills such as saving files, sending an email, and
searching for information on the internet.
Eisenhart (1989) defines in her article a nine step process on how to build theory from case study research, and below is my attempt to apply these steps my article.
Getting Started: The authors had a clear purpose and research question. They wanted to study what affects the Internet self-efficacy of a group of older people with low previous experience.
Selecting Cases: The authors had a thought through approach on their instructional sessions, well adapted to their test group older people with limited computer experience. The test group was also well defined, middle aged people defined as 45-64 years old and older people defined as 65+ years old.
Crafting Instruments and Protocols: The data was collected by observation during the instructional sessions, as well as during individual interviews. The interview protocol was semi-structured and gave room for free answers.
Enfolding literature: The author’s uses many references in a clear and constructive way.
Analyzing data: The
answers were analyzed and categorized in descriptive codes. Each code was
assigned to one of the four different sources of Internet self-efficacy. The method of applying these codes and
categories is described in the paper, but was very hard for me to follow. They
used qualitative features (observation during sessions) as well as the classified
answers from the interviews for their analyses.
Shaping
hypotheses: The authors started off with the four sources of Internet self-efficacy
proposed by Bandura (1986, 1997).
During their study and interviews they were able to formulate a source which
were not included in the theoretical construct and which seemed to be of great
importance, namely proactive personality.
Reaching
closure: The authors conclude that the
sources of self-efficacy seem to be more complicated than was previously
assumed, and they were able to find a previously overlooked source of self-efficacy,
the proactive personality. The findings also give way for a proposal in order to
try to help people with low self-efficacy by trying to help them become more
pro-active, which over time will strengthen their feelings and self-esteem.
Description
of a case study: A case study is according to J. Geering (2004): “an intensive
study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar)
units”. In other words a case study is an investigation which aims to
understand the dynamics within the settings of the study. Case studies are useful for forming general
ideas and using a test set-up with all other things being equal, and the output
is generally more ideal than concrete.
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Building Theories from Case Study Research”. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. (Impact Factor 7.895)
- C Lister, J West, R Richards, B Crookston, P Cougar Hall, A Redelfs (2013). “Technology for health: A qualitative study on barriers to using the iPad for diet change”. Health, 2013, Vol.05(04), p.761, (Impact Factor 1.137)
- Y-C Lin, J-C Liang, C-J Yang , C-C Tsai (2013). “Exploring middle-aged and older adults’ sources of Internet self-efficacy: A case study”. Computers in Human Behavior (Impact Factor 2.067), Volume 29, Issue 6, November 2013.
Hej Jenny!
SvaraRaderaYour selected paper "Technology for health: A qualitative study on barriers to using the iPad for diet change" seems interesting.
I like how you critically reflect upon the methodology used. I think that focus groups can provide us with explanations on phenomena and deeper understanding. As all research methods, focus group methodology has both benefits and limitations. I agree with your comment on the limitations of using a homogeneous group-in this case college students who are probably comfortable with digital information and apps.
As you mention, another limitation is that some participants might be affected by others' opinions, or that they might feel embarrassed to open up. Therefore, I believe that the moderator plays an important role in enabling everybody to express their point of view and keep the discussion going on and within the research topic-focus.
You note that individual interviews might also be constructive. So, I was wondering on whether you agree with a comment that I read on another blog post about focus groups being more of a complementary methodology. To be more specific, Filip discussed that he would not want to use it as a standalone method. Do you believe that focus groups should be used in combination with other methodologies?
I am not sure that a focus group should be seen as not possible to use as a standalone method. I believe that there is a time and a place for everything. However, I think some kind of follow up - if possible would be advantageous.
SvaraRaderaA focus group is good if you want to come up with creative ideas, as a group can reach further than the same amount of people individually. Maybe that is why they choose the focus group for this particular study, as they wanted to evaluate the usefulness of iPads as a tool for weight loss, and was probably hoping for a constructive discussion around the options. I agree with you that the moderator has an important role to let everybody have a say in a focus group. An experienced moderator can probably also get a feeling of what people think even thought they do not voice their opinions by viewing their body language and facial expressions. A second moderator/observer can probably catch even more unsaid messages, and help give hints to the moderator to keep the focus group "in control".
Ragnar Schön had a great idea on his blog post, and proposed a follow-up questionnaire after the focus group session. That way shy people could still have their say, and you can catch ideas that appeared after the session. A focus group discussion gets everybody's minds going and more ideas might pop up afterwards.
It would also possible after the session to let the interviewers know of you did not agree with ideas that were discussed even if you did not say it at the time.
What is your opinion?
Hey Jenny, and well written!
SvaraRaderaI like your first study, and it would be interesting to read it myself. I just have some questions on how the selected 20 participants got selected for this assignment. I assume that they have a good technology habit since they are college students, but how is their relationships towards food and eating patterns? If they have no relationship to food, are overweight, have anorexia or are gourme chefs will have a huge impact on the end result. Even if the participants are selected randomly will that play a part in the results and should be something that the authors should have been taken under consideration.
That is a very good point, and for me having read the entire article I assumed that they were all on the heavy side. After looking it up in the article the authors state the following:
SvaraRadera"recruited from an undergraduate health class at a Western university"
and their mission was as follows:
“they should use the iPad to change their diet during the next three weeks”.
I am not sure what a "health class" assumes, maybe that is very clear to an american?
However the reason I believe that they were all overweight because the authors later discuss one of the possible limitations to the study as people at this particular age (not teenagers and not quite yet adults) in general are at a stage of being in denial of their weight issue (assuming then there is one?).
That is an important point you bring up though and it makes a difference in the results of the study, and it would be easy for the authors to add this extra information for the readers interpretation.
Hey Jenny,
RaderaFirst of all, thanks for a well written text! I found this interesting as well and I remember that I thought about it when we discussed the article during the seminar this week. I guess that the subject in itself is quite a sensitive one, and that it holds a lot of underlying personal worries or agendas of the participants of the study, when they get questions about their diet or weight. Maybe they did not get these sort of questions and the article was solely focused on evaluating the application usage rather than lifestyle changes. Regardless I think this might have impacted the results in some way as the subject is sensitive as it is. I realize this might be quite an abstract comment but how do you interpret the authors relation to this? :)