Doing Rapid Qualitative Research

Cecilia Vindrola-Padros

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9781526497369, 9781526497376
• eBook ISBN: 9781529765960
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Nursing
• Index: Social Sciences

If you are working in a time-sensitive context, need to deliver research findings so they can be used to inform decisions, or are finding it difficult to access research funding for long-term qualitative research, this book will help you. Introducing 'rapid qualitative research', it demonstrates how you can conduct high quality qualitative research within time, access and resource constraints.

The book uses real world examples to illustrate the benefits and challenges of using rapid qualitative research designs. Focusing on the when, why and how, it explains the difference between cutting corners and making quick, well-informed research choices that support rigorous, credible research.

Key features of the book include discussion questions and exercises for you to reflect on and apply your learning, as well as two case study chapters of real-world research so you can see rapid research in action.

Written by the world's leading expert on this subject, this book contains the theoretical and practical nuts and bolts you need to reframe existing qualitative methods, speed up your research, and make tangible contributions to your field.  It is the perfect companion for any researcher, final-year undergraduate or postgraduate student looking to conduct rapid, but rigorous, qualitative research.

1 Introduction

Many years ago, I was approached by a senior manager in a children’s hospital who was looking for a research team to evaluate a new service he had implemented in the hospital. The purpose of the new service was to deliver some of the care required by patients as an outpatient service, reducing the need for children and their parents to be admitted to the hospital. A few months after the service had been rolled out, it was not providing care to the number of patients that had originally been estimated. This low number of patient cases was mainly due to staff members’ unwillingness and inability to refer patients to the service.

I was asked to put together a team to carry out a diagnostic study to identify the main reasons why staff were not referring patients to the service. The caveat was that important decisions would need to be made about continuing or discontinuing the service at the next Board meeting. This meant findings would need to be delivered in two months. From my point of view, this meant I would need to assemble a team, design a study protocol, collect data, analyse it and disseminate it in a user-friendly way in less than eight weeks.

It was not an easy process, but we managed to carry out a rapid appraisal of the main barriers to referral. We carried out interviews with staff, observed referral processes and the delivery of care in the outpatients’ area and conducted documentary analysis. We developed a visual summary of the findings (similar to an infographic) and shared them by the deadline. The Board decided to continue with the service provided that the service leads develop action plans to address each of the referral barriers we had identified in our evaluation. The main changes that needed to be made were the development of better educational materials for hospital staff in relation to the services the outpatient clinic could provide, the simplification of the paperwork required to refer patients (as some staff found this to be too time consuming) and the creation of a follow-up system where staff who referred patients to the outpatient service would be informed about these patients’ outcomes after they were seen as outpatients. This was my first exposure to rapid qualitative research and, needless to say, I fell in love with this field.

We (by we I mean our research team that has recently become the Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab [RREAL]) then went on to design and implement a wide range of rapid studies, including rapid ethnographies, rapid appraisals, rapid evaluations and rapid assessment procedures (RAPs). We reviewed the work others had done with these approaches (Johnson and Vindrola-Padros, 2017; Vindrola-Padros and Johnson, 2020; Vindrola-Padros and Vindrola-Padros, 2018; Vindrola-Padros et al., 2021) and sought ways to experiment with methods and advance the field of rapid qualitative research. We started being approached by other researchers, practitioners and students interested in the work and became aware of the need for formal training on these topics. We developed training courses for postgraduate students, clinicians, social scientists and managers, and it was at this point that we recognised the value of bringing together all of this information, our research experiences, previous studies, questions posed by our students, into one book.

The aim of the book is to develop capacity in the design, implementation, dissemination and use of findings generated through rapid qualitative research. I provide an overview of how these approaches have been used in the past, discuss the challenges of conducting rapid qualitative research through the use of real-world examples presented in the form of case studies and provide practical advice and guidelines for carrying out rapid and rigorous research. I also engage critically with this field, underscoring its main problems and limitations as well as situations when rapid approaches might not be suitable. I mainly focus on qualitative research but include examples of the collection and analysis of quantitative data, where relevant.

What Is Rapid Qualitative Research?

There is considerable debate in the field concerning the definition of rapid qualitative research. Beebe defined rapid qualitative inquiry (RQI) as ‘intensive, team-based qualitative inquiry with a) a focus on the insider’s or emic perspective, b) using multiple sources and triangulation, and c) using iterative data analysis and additional data collection to quickly develop a preliminary understanding of a situation’ (2014: 3). McNall and Foster-Fishman (2007) sought to identify the common principles among all rapid evaluation and appraisal methods (REAMs) and concluded that the processes they had in common were:

• Rapid: Study lasted a few weeks or a few months.
• Participatory: Members from the community were involved in the design and implementation of the study.
• Team-based: Study was carried out by teams of researchers working collaboratively.
• Iterative: Data were analysed as they were collected in order to share emerging findings (McNall and Foster-Fishman, 2007: 159).

The study timeframes continue to be undefined, and what might be rapid for some is not rapid for others. For Scrimshaw and Hurtado (1987), for instance, rapid studies required anywhere from four to eight weeks. Handwerker (2001), however, argued that quick ethnographies required 90 days. According to Beebe (2014), rapid studies could be carried out in less than one month.

Qualitative research has also been defined in different ways, while some authors have focused on the type of data collected (i.e. data that cannot be quantified), others have argued that the distinguishing feature of qualitative research is its interpretive stance (Snape and Spencer, 2004). For the purpose of this book, I define rapid qualitative research as empirical research that focuses on documenting aspects of the world through the eyes of others, integrates the subjectivities of the researcher as part of the research process (i.e. reflexivity) and engages with some form of social theory (Flick, 2018; Lapan et al., 2011). Based on recent reviews that have sought to map the rapid research field, I consider rapid qualitative research to be qualitative research that lasts anywhere from a few days to six months (Johnson and Vindrola-Padros, 2017; Vindrola-Padros and Vindrola-Padros, 2018) or might have a longer timeframe, but include multiple short and intensive stages of data collection and analysis, as in the case of rapid feedback evaluations and rapid cycle evaluations (Vindrola-Padros et al., 2021).

What Are the Main Rapid Qualitative Research Approaches?

Rapid qualitative research has a long-standing history in the social sciences. Some authors have argued that rapid fieldwork techniques have been used consistently since at least the 1970s through quick surveys or sondeos used in rural anthropology (Chambers, 1994b). Organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) were responsible for developing initial attempts to speed up the delivery of findings (Fitch et al., 2000). This was initially done by anthropologists carrying out fieldwork on nutrition and primary care, who developed rapid methodologies such as RAPs (Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1987). RAPs were developed to conduct rapid assessments of health-seeking behaviour by anthropologists or other professionals trained in field methods (Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1984, 1987). These authors developed a RAP manual with data collection guides to complete fieldwork within a timeframe of four to eight weeks (Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1987).

Other anthropologists developed approaches such as rapid ethnographic assessments (REAs) through a dietary management of diarrhoea programme led by Johns Hopkins University (Bentley et al., 1988). This approach was originally developed to provide quick assessments on local conditions to inform the design and implementation of interventions and obtain in-depth knowledge on local beliefs and attitudes (Bentley et al., 1988).

Rapid appraisals drew heavily from REAs and other forms of ethnographic and case study research. The main focus of rapid appraisals was on getting the insider’s perspective, and this was achieved through the use of intensive teamwork for data collection and data analysis (where members of the community could form part of the team), and iterative data collection and analysis (Beebe, 1995, 2004). Researchers also experimented with more participatory approaches, involving community members in the research process (Chambers, 1994). The most emblematic participatory approach was participatory rural appraisal (PRA). Frequently associated with the work of Robert Chambers, PRA has been defined as ‘a family of approaches and methods to enable rural people to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act’ (Chambers, 1994b: 953). It focused on the empowerment of local participants and involved data collection from a variety of sources (Rifkin, 1992).

Evaluators have also developed rapid approaches, including the development of rapid assessment methodology (RAM) in the 1990s for research focused on injecting drug use, rapid evaluation methods (REMs) and, more recently, rapid feedback evaluations and RCEs (to allow for longer evaluations, but with short cycles of data collection and analysis to share findings) (McNall et al., 2004; Shrank, 2013). These evaluations can be mixed methods, but a recent review has pointed to the frequent use of qualitative research designs (Vindrola-Padros et al., 2021).

Another recent trend has been an increase in the popularity of rapid ethnographies (Vindrola-Padros and Vindrola-Padros, 2018). Rapid ethnographies tend to have the following characteristics:

• The research is carried out over a short, compressed or intensive period of time.
• The research captures relevant social, cultural and behavioural information and focuses on human experiences and practices.
• The research engages with anthropological and other social science theories and promotes reflexivity.
• Data are collected from multiple sources and triangulated during analysis.
• More than one field researcher can be used to save time and cross-check data.
• Research designs and steps involved in the implementation of the study are reported clearly in publications and other forms of dissemination (Vindrola-Padros and Vindrola-Padros, 2018).

Rapid ethnographies have diversified and currently include quick ethnographies, focused ethnographies, focused rapid ethnographic evaluation (FREE), rapid ethnographies and short-term ethnographies. These approaches are normally used to capture in depth, rich data with targeted, intensive fieldwork (Knoblauch, 2005; Pink and Morgan, 2013). Chapter 3 provides a detailed overview of rapid ethnographies and the rapid qualitative research approaches mentioned earlier. An important thing to note is that, although these approaches share core features, their particular singularities provide researchers with a broad repertoire of approaches for carrying out rapid qualitative research, depending on preferences in relation to the degree of participatory research, structure and team-based work.

How Is Rapid Research Used and When Is It Useful?

There is variability in how rapid research has been used and it is important to go over different design approaches. Figure 1.1 presents the main types of rapid research use and integration with other types of studies we have found to date. Rapid research can be used (1) as a preliminary study used to inform longer-term research (Coreil et al., 1989), (2) as a short study carried out to explore new questions that might have remained or emerged after the longer study ended (Munoz-Plaza et al., 2016), (3) in parallel to a longer study, potentially using rapid feedback loops or cycles to inform the development of the longer study (McNall et al., 2004; Shrank, 2013) or (4) as a study on its own (Beebe, 2001).

Figure 1.1 Common rapid/longer-term research designs

The use of rapid research is diverse and these types of studies tend to be flexible and easily adaptable to changing circumstances. However, this does not mean that rapid research is appropriate for all research contexts and topics. Nunns (2009) developed a resource–time matrix to examine the value of carrying out certain types of evaluations in the policy context. According to her, ‘proper’ evaluations were those where researchers had a higher level of resource and less time or a higher level of resource and more time (Nunns 2009). The former often involved evaluations where findings were time-critical for stakeholders, but researchers had a team at their disposal and used rapid research and evaluation methods. The latter involved evaluations that were not as constrained by time (or constrained in a different way, such as requiring regular feedback loops of findings), and more complex designs could used (Nunns, 2009).

Evaluations where researchers had more time but fewer resources might not be ‘nice to do’ as the lack of resources might imply they were not a priority for policymakers (Nunns, 2009). Evaluations with fewer resources and less time should only be carried out if the researchers had confidence in the quality of available data. If new data needed to be collected or the quality of the existing data was questionable, these should be avoided (Nunns, 2009).

The matrix developed by Nunns (2009) is not only useful for evaluations but for other types of projects as well. Factors such as the purpose of the study, type of research question, resources available, times when findings are required and data availability can determine the type of research design and can help researchers decide whether rapid research is the best option. Nunns' (2009) framework is also helpful for raising red flags in cases where low levels of resource and time pressures could lead to low-quality studies. In our experience, there are a series of situations when it might be best to avoid carrying out rapid qualitative studies and these include:

• When the time and resources available for the study are severely constrained and there is a lack of existing evidence to help inform the study design
• When there are clear signs that the team will not be able to get access to the people or spaces required to carry out data collection for the study
• When the research questions cannot be answered with a rapid study design as they require long-term engagement with a specific topic or area
• When the findings of the study can produce negative consequences for some of the stakeholders (intended or unintended)
• When researchers are being asked to ‘cut corners’ or carry out research in a way that might violate quality or ethical standards of research

What Are the Challenges of Carrying Out Rapid Qualitative Research?

The development of rapid qualitative research approaches has not gone uncontested. Some authors have positioned themselves completely against this type of research, others have cautioned against their mainstream use (Fitch et al., 2000) and a third group has critically examined their design and implementation and tried to develop strategies to help overcome their challenges (Vindrola-Padros, 2020; Vindrola-Padros and Vindrola-Padros, 2018). I discuss the challenges of rapid qualitative research in greater depth in Chapter 6, but at this stage in the book, it is important to highlight that one of the main challenges faced by researchers using rapid qualitative research is overcoming the assumption that, when research is rapid, it will lose rigour and the richness and depth normally associated with qualitative research (Pink and Morgan, 2013). According to this assumption, building relationships with participants and getting a good understanding of complex social and cultural issues takes time (Beebe, 2001). In order to reach its full potential, qualitative research should not be carried out over short periods of time.

Proponents of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• List Of Figures
• 1 Introduction
• 2 A Brief Overview of Rapid Qualitative Research Approaches
• 3 Designing Rapid Qualitative Studies
• 4 Data Collection in Rapid Qualitative Research
• 5 Data Analysis and Interpretation
• 6 Challenges and Practicalities of Rapid Qualitative Research
• 7 Dissemination and the Use of Findings
• 8 Case Study 1: A Rapid Appraisal of Healthcare Workers’ Experiences of Care During Covid-19
• 9 Case Study 2: A Rapid Service Evaluation of a Programme to Support Parents of Children with Learning Disabilities
• 10 The Future of Rapid Qualitative Research
• Appendix 1: Additional Resources
• References
• Index