Past meetings

The first QRG meeting of 2024 was a robust discussion about the significance and challenges of collaboration in qualitative research. Three guest speakers – Maarten Derksen, Sarahanne Field, and Marieke van Gerner-Haan, shared their diverse experiences with qualitative research, and how collaboration is needed on different levels, and to different degrees, in their work.

Qualitative research projects are typically done in teams. This can be for different reasons, including the size of a project, the vastness of material to be collected and analysed (methodological reasons), or simply because more heads can achieve more together. Collaboration is therefore crucial for the project to be successful, and for the individual team members’ goal achievement. Collaboration also means that people with different expertise levels, specialisations and personal preferences must work together to find a comfortable middle ground for everyone to work in harmony, and for the research project to be successful. This is no small feat – our guests discussed the challenges of finding this middle ground, and expressed that in some projects, finding a way to work together takes a lot of time. Negotiation was a big part of the discussion: mediating different levels of experience with qualitative research and their implied power dynamics, assigning fitting roles according to expertise areas, negotiating the scope of the research, and sharing expectations about how participants influence the research. A large contributing factor to a successful negotiation is being transparent and communicating openly from the start of the project. For example, sharing one’s epistemological stances with other team members, and being open about expectations about how to code and analyse data. In turn, being open requires reflexivity: being able to reflect and share what (research) values and approaches each member brings to the team, but also what values and approaches the team represents through the project. This brought our guests to reflect on trust.

The process of collaboration can build trust and friendship between the team members of a project. One guest reflected about working with a particular colleague for many years, recalling how that longitudinal process established a shared understanding of one another’s strengths and vulnerabilities, and a foundation of trust that they can rely on each other and work through difficulties together. This dynamic naturally changed when a new colleague joined their project, as the new member brought in new values, skills, opinions, epistemological stances. The process of negotiation began anew, and new dynamics were established, as time and the project progressed. Collaboration in qualitative research is particularly prone to being fluid and flexible, because it relies so heavily of what each member of a research project contribute through their personalities, epistemological beliefs, experience, and skills.

Toward the end of the session, our guests discussed how qualitative collaboration feels compared to quantitative collaborations. Generally, the guests agreed that qualitative projects feel more personal, for example because coding choices are more complex to motivate as compared to quantitative research, as they are more based on the individual researcher’s interests. Differences between analysing and coding qualitative data inductively or deductively depend on the researchers’ preference and motivations, and affect the outcome of how data is viewed, what is considered most important to investigate, and what insights are presented as a result of the study. Working together to prevent disagreements or conflicts between researchers requires emotional work, and relies on their ability to communicate and reflect as a team. In quantitative research, there are more often computational reasons for motivating a choice in an analysis, reflecting a difference between traditions of working on a project.

We thank our guest speakers for sharing their experiences and insights, and our audience for engaging in the discussion and bringing their experiences and questions to the table. We invite you to join us for our next session about being an Insider Outsider – inside a project, yet outside the participants’ circle. Our guests for this session will be Ole Gmelin, Brenda Bartelink, Halim Albakkor and Januschka Schmidt. You can find us in Hv.0306 on March 5^th, from 11:30-13:00.  Everyone is welcome, and we look forward to seeing you there.

In this intimate and interactive session Rodrigo González Álvarez was our guest, and kindly offered to reflect on his untypical PhD path with us. Rodrigo, originally from Mexico, completed his master’s and PhD at the RUG. He defended his dissertation titled ‘Resilience among LGBTQIA+ youth in out-of-home care: A multidimensional exploration of their resilience resources’ in February. He is currently a lecturer at the University College Groningen. By sharing his personal story, the challenges he faced and the joys he found along his PhD journey, he offered us a unique opportunity to reflect on what we think is most important to us in academic life.

Rodrigo started his PhD at the UMCG in the area of Health Psychology. After two years, however, he came to the conclusion that this PhD did not suit him. Beyond the regular adversities associated with doing a PhD, such as becoming an independent researcher while maintaining a good work-life balance, he faced additional stressors. He had a complicated relationship with his supervisor and research team, and he did not feel passionate about the topic and the methods used in his research. He took the decision to abandon his project, his supervisors and the faculty, and to begin with a new PhD and a new supervisor, researching the LGBTQIA+ community and young people at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Changing PhD, however, was not a smooth process, it presented Rodrigo with new challenges. His previous supervisor was not much enthusiastic about the idea of Rodrigo dropping his PhD and taking on another one in a different faculty. He succeeded in transitioning to his new PhD with the help of his new supervisor. Since his funding for PhD lasted for four years, after having spent two years in his new PhD position, there was no money left. During the last months of his PhD he worked in a bar to make ends meet.

During the session, Rodrigo also talked about the many aspects he appreciated in his second PhD. He worked in a culturally diverse team, with like-minded people who were all members of the LGBTQIA+ community or other marginalized groups. They all stood for social justice. This made building relationships within the team more easy. He started to supervise master students and because his supervisor introduced him to a lot of people, he built a professional network. By the end of his second PhD, he did not define himself as Psychologist but, rather, as a Social Scientist.

Rodrigo reflected on the differences between his first and second PhD. His first PhD had a positivist approach to knowledge production, it was monodisciplinary with a culturally homogenous and straight environment, where the team members had a lot of independence and a wide work-life gap. In contrast, his second PhD had an interpretivist approach, it was interdisciplinary with a multicultural and queer environment, where Rodrigo received closer guidance and he experienced a narrower work-life gap. Because he felt personally involved in the research project that aligned with his personal identity, this PhD suited him better.

At the end of the session, Rodrigo suggested us to reflect on some of these questions regarding our academic life: What is the role of the research topic and my personal relation to it? What is the role of the supervisors and team, and my relationships with them? And of particular interest to this group, what is the relevance of the research methodologies and epistemic approaches? How much do I personally align with my work? How emotionally involved am I with my research project? Is personal involvement in the research topic important for me? How important the research is for my personal identity? Is the social climate of the work environment important for me?

Ildikó Posta

On Tuesday we had an introductory workshop on Conversation Analysis led by Ole Gmelin from the Theory and History of Psychology Unit. Ole is the incoming assistant professor for qualitative research methods at the faculty. In this workshop, he illustrated how to systematically study conversation in the context of everyday interactions. This type of analysis is interesting for social scientists who are interested in studying social interaction and communication. By analyzing how people talk and interact in real-life situations, researchers can gain insights into the organization and the construction of social reality. It allows researchers to uncover the implicit rules and norms that govern social interactions and to examine the interplay between individual agency and social structures.

Fifteen attendees from different departments and units at the faculty, ranging from Bachelor’s students to faculty staff, participated in the workshop. Together, we delved into the basic concepts used in conversation analysis, and explored how it approaches the study of everyday talk. In the first part of the workshop Ole gave a lecture introducing the key concepts. He used example data from a gay speed-dating study to demonstrate how consistencies and changes in the way that an individual speaker talks about himself may arise across conversations, and how such patterns can reveal something about the social rules that underlie individual development. The second part of the lecture involved an exercise in which we jointly analyzed a video-recording of a young gay man coming out to his mother.

Through this workshop Ole demonstrated how an analysis of conversations can illustrate how social organization may unfold over time. We also learned how multi-layered conversations can be, and that a careful study of interactions can reveal something about the interplay between individuals and society. This is of particular interest to social scientists who would like to know more about how contexts affect the development of individuals. We would like to thank both Ole a well as all the attendees for their questions and enthusiasm.