Guest editorial: What's common with qualitative nursing research these days?

When I went to Taiwan in 2005 for the International Council of Nurses (ICN) Conference, I paid particular attention to any posters reporting qualitative nursing research – the extensive display of posters was changed daily and reports of qualitative research featured often. In addition, as much as was possible with many concurrent sessions being offered, I tried to listen to presentations that reported qualitative research. Although abstracts submitted for consideration as conference presentations or posters are usually either peer reviewed or committee reviewed, there can be a different level of scrutiny compared with that of manuscripts reporting research in some detail when submitted to peer-review journals. However, when reading a poster or listening to a presentation at a conference, usually there is enough detail discernible to help identify and understand trends in qualitative nursing research. The ICN conference, because of the sheer bulk of posters and presentations, provided a smorgasbord for this purpose. Regarding posters, there was a slight swaying toward studies being reported from Asian nations, but most regions of the world were represented and presentations featured studies from around the globe. Overall, clinically orientated questions relevant to nursing practice were most prevalent, with fewer studies focusing on education, management and professional issues. Amongst qualitative approaches used were ethnographies, case studies, historical research and a smattering of discourse analyses. There were qualitative components to some mixed methods research, with more mixed modes than previously discerned at conferences, so that is a trend. However, the majority of qualitative studies could be categorized into one of three groups that are presented to follow with discernible trends pertinent to each category mentioned. Phenomenology remains popular, although it was not always acknowledged what form of phenomenology was applied, which hindered evaluation. As could be expected, as the tradition of phenomenology does not have set processes for data analysis, the analysis steps arose from the oft-selected work of such as van Kaam (1959)), Benner (1985), Giorgi (1985), van Manen (1990) and Colaizzi (1978), with the latter two most common. Here and there was a hint that creativity was being applied either to analysis step variation or to forms of reporting results, but the usual outcomes of themes and sub-themes were reported. Sample size ranged from four to 20 participants. Rich insights into human experiences relevant to nursing care were evident. Grounded Theory (GT) is still popular amongst nurse researchers, which is to be expected since ‘cut its teeth’ in the milieu of nursing research in the 1960s. Glaserian GT (classic mode –Glaser researchers of nursing want to do it, can do it and can do it well, even though the research may be variously labelled or even inappropriately labelled. In published reports of nursing research, the category of descriptive exploratory qualitative research is also featuring (e.g. Gallagher & Truglio-Londrigan 2004), or there may be a labelling of method as either ‘descriptive’ (e.g. Tse et al. 2005) or ‘exploratory’ (e.g. Manias et al. 2005), or classified with some other generic term. Other watchers of qualitative nursing research like Sandelowski and Barraso (2003) have noted a form of qualitative nursing research being named ‘descriptive/exploratory’ or more generically as simply ‘qualitative’, ‘interpretive’ or ‘naturalistic’. Is this the embryonic genesis of a unique method for nursing research? Perhaps not, as anecdotal evidence suggests that similar method is being applied within other disciplines. Perhaps so, however, if careful consideration is given amongst the growing mass of qualitative nurse researchers for doing this form of qualitative research not only well, but in a way that particularly facilitates quality outcomes directly applicable to nursing practice and tangential areas of nurse activity. Thorne et al. (1997) have explicated a method recommended especially for nursing research that they use, which is entitled ‘interpretive description’, so there are signs that this quest has commenced. I am wondering, however, if we do not need, overtly, to acknowledge this large portion of qualitative nursing research and ensure that our texts and courses about nursing research acknowledge this group, facilitating recognition of what is happening in reality. Additionally, it might be time for qualitative methodologists to champion some broad criteria regarding production of a quality study.