3-D Elements When Evaluating Qualitative Research Proposals

Hello Qualitative Mind,

In the last three posts we talked about many aspects related to writing qualitative research proposals for funding opportunities. In this post, we are going to offer additional insights that can also be helpful to proposal reviewers. The points I’m raising here are based on Janice Morse’s article A Review Committee’s Guide for Evaluating Qualitative Proposals (Qualitative Health Research, Volume 13, Number 6, July 2003), which I highly recommend to qualitative proposal writers and reviewers alike.

Although qualitative research commonly means stepping into the unknown, qualitative research proposals can be evaluated using three dimensions proposed by Guba in 1981: relevance, rigor and feasibility. Relevance explores the idea proposed, especially the potential contribution of the results that will be obtained by completing the qualitative research project. My mentor always used one question to illustrate relevance, “Why should we care about your proposed idea?” If you are now reading this and wondering how to demonstrate relevance, I encourage you to read or re-read the blog post where we covered writing an effective literature review.

Rigor, a word that seems to weave through most Quali Q blog posts, refers to the proposed way the researcher(s) will explore the data. Showing rigour requires a description of the “proposed way” while keeping the design flexible and researcher responsive (something we also discussed in the previous blog post). This is an art...the art of walking the line! It’s not impossible to accomplish rigor and responsiveness because they go together, one inviting the other along the research process. The tricky part is including both in the writing of a qualitative research proposal without being too wordy or creating confusion. This might happen in a sentence where you say, for example, you’ll be proposing interviews to community stakeholders to explore X, Y, Z. Do you see what such a sentence implies? You’re saying you’ll propose a method of data collection yet the final decision will come upon community discussions. It’s subtle but it’s there and, as much as possible, aligns with your approach, paradigm and overall method.

It’s not impossible to accomplish rigour and responsiveness…

When it comes to feasibility, we need to discuss this dimension in the context of COVID-19. Feasibility includes evaluating resources available, time required to complete the proposed research, access to participants and ethical concerns. The 2020 pandemic has added an additional layer of complexity to feasibility. It is harder to predict recruitment rates, study pace and analysis, and resources available because of COVID-19. Qualitative researchers do highly relational work, and are trying to move their qualitative research projects online using the best tools and methods they have available at this point. In many cases, it’s been another step into the unknown, and something that will require even greater researcher responsiveness. I do believe reviewers are in the same boat, and sincerely hope that in the next few years they will be more understanding with the feasibility issues detailed in qualitative research proposals.

To conclude the writing qualitative proposal series, I want to circle back to Dr. Morse’s article where she talks about a common qualitative research myth (that I hope to continue debunking here): “Qualitative inquiry is simplistic and simple” (Morse, 2003. p. 834). Truth be told, some people still see qualitative research as informal conversations that are then summarized, resulting in biased and subjective reports [Ouch! Writing that hurts!]. What are they missing? They are missing the fact that qualitative data is rich with implicit meaning that even participants might be unaware of as they share their experiences with researchers. In addition to uncovering implicit meaning, qualitative researchers evaluate the role of theory and abstraction in qualitative inquiry. These processes are much more complex and nuanced that a simple summary of “biased” responses. Not only did the three dimensions presented here demonstrate that, but also several paragraphs within the June blog posts.

All the best in your qualitative proposal writing! Aim high because you can do it, and it’s worthwhile!

Talk soon,

Maira