CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsInnovations in Medical Education

Junior-to-junior research interviews as method for clinical practitioner-researchers

Open access
Qureshi, Shaun Peter, Rankin, Katharine·2019·Advances in Medical Education and Practice
DOI 10.2147/amep.s192595PMC PMC6456245
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This methodological article argues for the advantages of trainee health professionals investigating their own work contexts through qualitative research interviews with peers and presents such junior-to-junior interviews as method. The usefulness and flexibility of the method are demonstrated through two vignettes based on the authors' individual experiences as junior medical doctors generating data through interviews with their peers. The article discusses specific considerations of junior-to-junior interviews: academic considerations including cognizance of reflexivity, trustworthiness, commitment, coherence; ethical considerations including hierarchy, confidentiality, support needs. The method has limitations including research being carried out by novices and on a small scale. However, we argue that junior-to-junior interviews allow for unique and valuable data generation, and encourage other practitioner-researchers to consider how this or similar methods may be integrated into research approaches across clinical disciplines, and organizational and cultural contexts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/amep.s192595

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Consideration of power imbalances between participants and researcher is especially important when researching medical students and doctors, who already may be operating within a hierarchical structure.

    “Like all research, there must be consideration of power imbalances between the participants and researcher, and this is especially important when researching medical students and doctors, who already may be operating within a hierarchical structure.46,49”

    From Cultural Historical Activity Theory for Studying Practice-Based Learning and Change in Medical Education (2021) · cites this paper as [46]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [3]Robson C. Appendix B: the roles of practitioner-researchers, researchers and consultants in real world research In: Robson C, editor. Real World Research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 2002: 534– 545.
  2. [11]Edwards PK, O’Mahoney J, Vincent S. Critical realism and interviewing subject. In: Edwards PK, O'Mahoney J, Vincent S, editors. Studying Organizations Using Critical Realism: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014: 109– 131.
  3. [12]Brinkmann S, Kvale S. Part 1: conceptualizing the research interview In: Brinkmann S, Kvale S, editors. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2015: 25– 123.
  4. [14]Crotty M. The research process. In: Crotty M, editor The Foundations of Social Research. Sage; 1998: 1– 17.
  5. [16]Liamputtong Rice P, Ezzy D. In-depth interviews In: Liamputtong Rice P, Ezzy D, editors. Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999: 51– 70.
  6. [33]Gough B. Deconstructing reflexivity In: Finlay L, Gough B, editors. Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2003: 21– 36.
  7. [44]Silverman D. Interview data In: Silverman D, editor. Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage; 1993: 90– 114.
  8. [46]Denzin NK. Triangulation 2.0. J Mix Methods Res. 2012; 6(2): 80– 88.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Qureshi, S. P., & Rankin, K.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Qureshi, Shaun Peter
  • Rankin, Katharine
ORCID
Qureshi, Shaun Peter
Venue
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-03
Volume
Volume 10
Pages
127-137
ISSN
1179-7258 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2147/amep.s192595
PMC
PMC6456245
OpenAlex
W2922294958
Cited by
4
References
42
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Advances in Medical Education and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
peer interviews, reflexivity, trustworthiness, research ethics, confidentiality, novice researchers

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