Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative triangulation framework reveals tensions in healthcare experiences of trans and gender diverse youth, suggesting improved research methods for minoritised groups.
Global health and social research have advocated a requirement for community-engaged research methods to better address the needs of minoritised groups. However, conventional research practices, often influenced by positivist traditions, tend to prioritise convergence, overlooking critical tensions within and across data sets. Resultantly, changes within healthcare and policy have not been matched with parallel benefits for minoritised groups. These disparities underscore the need for research methods that can adequately give voice to multiple stakeholder groups and understand these discrepancies. In response to these issues, the present study introduces the novel development of the Qualitative Triangulation Framework (QTF). Extending previous triangulation methodologies, the QTF provides a framework for exploring both agreement and disagreement within and across qualitative data sets from multiple stakeholder groups. Developed in the context of research with trans and gender diverse (TGD) youth, the QTF was valuable for revealing both inter- and intra-group differences in what they deemed as health-enhancing. Thus, the QTF enhances the actionability of qualitative findings, allowing for the development of more effective policy recommendations that can better address these overlooked tensions. Beyond its application to TGD healthcare, the QTF provides a replicable model for amplifying minoritised voices in research with other underserved populations, advancing equity in healthcare research and practice. Extension of the QTF for systematically exploring competing perspectives beyond minoritised groups are also discussed. Overall, the QTF represents a significant advancement in qualitative methodologies, offering a powerful tool for researchers seeking to navigate complexity, reconcile conflicting viewpoints, and drive meaningful change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Staras et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: