The Unsolicited Diary as a Qualitative Research Tool for Advanced Research Capacity in the Field of Health and Illness
Abstract
In this article, the place of diary method is examined in the context of qualitative tools. Although much neglected in qualitative methodology, there is considerable support for its use, and it is argued that unsolicited diary analysis as a qualitative tool has value as a social research method. Although it is commissioned or solicited diaries that are increasingly popular in health research, different kinds of diary usage are examined together with certain possible biases and weaknesses. Although framework analysis was originally developed for analyzing interview data, it is seen as an appropriate qualitative tool for the analysis of unsolicited diaries. The analysis of an unsolicited diary account of a patient suffering from cancer of the larynx is explored as a potential data source.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Framework Method could, in principle, be adapted for other types of textual data, including documents and field notes from observations.
“although it could, in principle, be adapted for other types of textual data [13], including documents, such as meeting minutes or diaries [12], or field notes from observations [10].”
From Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research (2013) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 123
- Authors
- Jones, R. K.
- Affiliations
- Canada and sub-Saharan Africa
- Corresponding author
- Jones, R. Kenneth
- Venue
- Qualitative Health Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 555-567
- ISSN
- 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7557
- OpenAlex
- W2153900621
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Keywords
- diary method, qualitative research tools, framework analysis, research capacity building, health and illness, patient experience, research bias
- MeSH terms
- Attitude to Health, Documentation, Health Services Research, Humans, Laryngeal Neoplasms, Life Style, Quality of Health Care, Quality of Life, Records
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
