Parenting In Critical Situations .

Introduction

This paper aims to conduct a critical analysis on the study by Murray (2013). It will identify, explain and comment on various methodological aspects of the study, while identifying the impacts of these methodological aspects on the study’s reliability and validity. Some of the areas to be covered include: research questions, format, piloting, sampling, coding and analysis, results, conclusion and discussion.

Research Questions and Study Design

The study by Murray (2013) used a self-reported questionnaire to collect data from the target population from 6 secondary schools. According to Atkinson & Coffey (2002), questionnaires are instruments used to collect data by asking the respondent to answer a set of oral or written questions. Nonetheless, Apan et al (2012) point out that the most important aspect to be considered when using questionnaires is whether the questions are appropriate for achieving the research objective. More importantly, according to Bloor & Wood (2006), the use of questionnaires begins with the process of determining whether they are the best method of gathering data for the intended objectives.

Against this background, it is monumental to ask whether Murray was correct in choosing questionnaires as his selected tool for data collection. However, the main aim of his study was to identify young people’s perspective towards how they are parented during critical situations i.e. upon committing offenses. Hence, to evaluate whether questionnaires were the best tool for data collection, we need to question whether questionnaires can be used to collect such a level of subjective information i.e. perspectives, opinions, or attitudes.

But, according to Given (2008), questionnaires are appropriate in gathering data on perceptions and attitudes because they give the respondent time to think through and give a careful response that would depict the true nature of perspective they have towards the phenomenon. Therefore, on this account, questionnaires proved to be the most appropriate method of data collection as it enabled the researchers to gather the desired sets of data. Hendershot et al (2014) also point out that questionnaires are good in collection perspectives and opinion data because they are designed in a manner that the questions are scored and later summed to give an overall measure of the respondent’s perspectives and attitudes. Therefore, in this regard, the questionnaire was an appropriate method for this study.

Moreover, according to Keegan (2009), questionnaires provide an opportunity for the researcher to address a large number of questions and issues in a more efficient way, and with likelihood that a good response rate would be achieved. Here, Murray intended to address a range of issues regarding child’s perspective of parenting in critical situations (i.e. upon offending), for example the relationship between parenting styles and offending behaviour, parental responses to offending behaviour, parent’s emotional response to offending and how punitive they were after the child's act of offense. Hence, questionnaires were the most appropriate methodology to use because it provided an opportunity to address all these issues by allowing the respondent to respond to them within one session. By using questionnaires, the researchers were able to address all these issues in a more cost effective and time efficient manner (Leavy, 2014).

However, there are several shortcomings of questionnaires that might have affected the study. For instance, according to Maxwell (2013), Questionnaires are highly complex instruments that might have taken the researcher more time to accurately design. Moreover, May (2002) acknowledge that any slight mistake made in designing the questionnaires may lead to the formation of misleading questions that may confuse the respondent.

Validity and Reliability

In a research critique, issues of validity evaluate whether the concepts are easier to understand and are more concrete. According to Newell & Burnard (2011), it entails identifying whether the researcher has identified clear procedures of measurements by clearly defining the concepts assigning each concept an instrument of measurement. Hence, in evaluating the validity of a research article, the main focus is on whether the researchers have correctly defined what they want to measure and whether these measures reflect the researchers’ intended concepts to be measured (Padgett, 2008).

Here, there researcher’s main aim is to identify how parents react at when they realise that their children have acted offensively. However, they fail to make and justify any claims of validity. Despite this, there are several validity issues that emerged in the study methodology. For instance, the researchers conducted a re-analysis based on data that was collected outside the context in which the original data was collected. While the original study targeted to answer the question: why young people developed or stopped offending behaviours; the current study sought to answer the question: how disasters and non-offenders maintained their non-offending behaviour. Penelope (2018) asserts that the validity of a research study is compromised when the researcher’s interpretation of data is not clear. Here, the researchers use data collected for a different purpose to make conclusions regarding a research question. Hence, the study’s validity is highly questionable. Indeed, it is questionable whether the same concepts that were measured by the earlier researchers are still the ones measured by the Murray.

Ridenour & Newman (2008) argue that an externally valid research can easily be generalized to a larger context or group. In short, a valid research is one whose findings are applicable to other contexts other than the one in which the study was conducted. This implies that the external validity of the study should consider the population characteristics, how explicit the independent variable is described, how the research environment affected the research outcomes, issues of researcher bias, and the effect of time on the research (Rindenour & Newman, 2008). Testing these indicators against the current study, there emerge several reliability issues that are worth noting. For instance, the researchers involved in the current secondary data analysis are not the same ones who collected the data. Therefore, according to Rubin & Babbie (2010), they might not be aware of specific nuances or shortcomings that were present during the data collection process, which may be useful in the current interpretation of the data. This may affect the way some variables are understood or interpreted, thereby affecting the generalizability of the study (Suzanne, 2016). Indeed, Murray acknowledges that the only data they used was the textual data, and therefore they might have lost all the non-verbal and nuanced cues. This raises a question about the validity of the study because it is not clear whether the missed non-verbal cues or the nuanced data were useful in measuring the dependent variable.

An ethnographic approach could have therefore been appropriate because in such kind of a study, all the data is recorded in field notes for use during data re-analysis. Broadly, according to Speziale & Carpenter (2011), ethnography involves the recording and analysis of data from the respondent based on observations that are captured in a written account. All the data and observations collected are recorded in written form, and are therefore able to capture the visual and nuanced cues.

Format

Murray explicitly give examples of questions used in the questionnaires during the interviews. For example: Did that stop you...Uh-huh? And: How did your family react to you getting drunk and things like that? Tappen (2010) argues that while using questionnaires to collect data in qualitative research, the questions must be as clear and straightforward as possible so that the respondent is not confused or misled. Here, whereas Murray use secondary data analysis for the purposes of his study, there is evidence that the questionnaire questions were straight, direct and could make sense. For instance, in one scenario, while the interviewer attempted to know how offenders would feel about their offenses not being known by other their family or friends, the interviewer asked a direct question i.e. “And how do you think that would make you feel?” Evidently, this was a sensible question that could easily be answered by the respondents. The clear nature of the questions is evident in the way the respondents could easily respond to them. For example, in the example above, the respondent answered that: “an outcast”

Van De Berg & Struwig (2017) argue that interview questions are also supposed to be unambiguous. However, the fact that all the interview questions were not revealed by Murray makes it difficult to determine whether all the questions were unambiguous or not. That notwithstanding, Dekel et al (2018) also used interview questionnaires to conduct s similar study and revealed relatively similar results. Hence, the questionnaire tool worked well in delivering clear and objective questions that could enable the collection of desired information.

Piloting

The study also fails to give details of any piloting studies undertaken before the main study. According to Yin (2016), pilot studies are small-scale studies that are preliminarily conducted to investigate whether the various components of the main study are feasible. It is usually useful in predicting various aspects of the intended study and is useful in making the necessary preparations before conducting the full-scale study – to save time and resources (Leavy, 2014). Hence, according to Atkinson & Coffey (2002), it is meant to answer the question of whether the full-scale study can be conducted according to the existing plans or should some changes be made. Piloting is usually done on randomised control trials (RTC) and perhaps that justifies why Murray did not conduct or mention piloting in his study.

Due to the lack of piloting by Murray, it is difficult to establish whether the study was adequately piloted using adequate means and methods of administration on the representative sample of the study. Nonetheless, according to Apan et al (2012), pilot studies must be conducted using effective methods of administration to allow an easier interpretation by the target population sample, so that correct implication can be derived thereof. Moreover, Atkinson & Coffey (2002) argue that researchers must ensure that the piloting is sample is a good representative of the entire population so that accurate inferences can be made from the pilot study.

Sampling

Hendershot et al (2014) observe that a quality research study must clearly and explicitly state the process through which the purposeful selection of the sample population was done. Hence, by mentioning that his study was based on a sample of 112 teenagers (i.e. 53 boys and 59 girls), Murray fulfilled this threshold. Apan et al (2012) also assert that the researchers need to identify the process through which the sample size was collected. In regards to Murray’s study, there is a clear description of sample size selection process, whereby it is stated that the self-reporting questionnaires were sent to 6 secondary schools, together with a subsample. Each member of the subsample was required to nominate themselves to the study by tearing off a slip from the initial questionnaire script.

According to Atkinson & Coffey (2002), describing the sample selection process is monumental in demonstrating the trustworthiness of the study because any other researcher would follow the same sampling procedure when repeating the same type of study. However, Murray fail to justify or provide a rationale for his sampling procedure and this affects the reliability of the study. By failing to justify the rationale for the sampling method, it becomes difficult for other researchers to replicate the same type of study and emerge with similar results (Leavy, 2014).

Given (2008) argues that sampling size must be a good representative of the entire population and that it must be sufficiently large. Broadly considering the study by Murray, the sample of n=112 was not an adequate representative of the entire population of offenders, comparable to the study by Dekel et al (2018) who used a larger sample to conduct the same study. Against this background, the study’s generalizability is affected by its small sample size and this has a ramification on the study’s validity.

A study’s response rate is quite important in determining the credibility of any research. This is because when there is a low response rate; the study’s statistical power is reduced thereby undermining its credibility (Leavy, 2014). Atkinson & Coffey (2002) also argue that the response rate is important in determining the generalizability of the study to a larger audience. Against this background, considering Murray’s study, there was a 100% response rate from the selected sample, and this improves the reliability of the study. While the researchers failed to discuss any potential respondent bias, a 100% response rate can also be used to extrapolate that they might have not had any response bias within the sample (Maxwell, 2013).

Murray clearly describe the details of respondents who were admissible in the study. The study comprised of young people who were classified as either offender had ceased offending or had never offended. Hence, it can clearly be inferred that those who did not fit within these categories were excluded from the study.

Coding and Analysis

Murray’s data analysis was fairly indicative i.e. there made a fair description of how the results emerged from the data. In doing so, they have described that to analyse the interview datasets, the researchers used NVivo to analyse the interview datasets. Ideally, according to Apan et al (2012), Nvivo allows for a transparent and systematic analysis of the data at hand using segments of the recorded data. It is also important to note that being a reanalysis, the researchers did not rely on the original study’s codes but rather generated new codes for the purpose of the latest study. This was useful in ensuring that they remained objective to his current research question rather than the previous research question (Hendershot et al, 2014).

The researchers have also demonstrated the manner in which his qualitative data analysis was inductive, i.e. they have identified and desMurraycribed how they organized the data into ‘chunks’ i.e. nodes, categories and finally themes. This corroborates with Atkinson & Coffey’s (2002) assertion that a rigorously done data analysis must be able to describe how data was organized and used to develop themes that are useful in answering the research question.

HISMurray derived descriptive codes by evaluating the specific responses emerging from specific questions. In doing so, they attributed common meaning to the respondents’ answers regardless of the respondents not being too explicit with these meanings. Because the researchers aimed at identifying the respondents’ perceptions of parenting in critical situations, coding was appropriate in helping the researchers to categorise information for purposes of effective analysis because through coding, data is broken down in a simple analysable state (Leavy, 2014). Besides, having based his study on a grounded theory whereby data segments are coded from scratch, the coding method was appropriate for grouping the data into notable patterns and themes that emerge from the interview documents (Maxwell, 2013).

It is also worth commenting on the procedural rigour of Murray’s data collection strategies. According to Given (2008), a rigorous data collection strategy denotes a well-described data collection procedure showing the reader the tasks undertaken to collect the data. Moreover, Apan et al (2012) argue that to demonstrate rigour in data collection, the researcher must describe all sources of data used in the study. Considering Murray et al’s study, there is a clear description of how the data was collected. For instance, they indicate that all the participants who self-nominated themselves for further participation were later invited for interviews the interviews were recorded and the textual data obtained were analysed through Nvivo. Therefore, broadly, there is a detailed description of the data collection process and this contributes to the reliability of the study.

Given (2008) argues that a good research study must describe an ‘audit trail’ which identifies the codes, patterns, and categories of themes because these elements might be complex to understand. This process should be articulated using a decision trail which gives details of decisions made throughout the process including how data was transformed into codes. Considering Murray’s study, they have given an adequate elaboration of the process in through which they converted data into codes into themes, but they do not give a proper decision trail/or audit. In short, they failed to mention the rationale of every step in the process. For example, it is not explained why the researchers made a decision to use a re-analysis as opposed to an assorted analysis.

The researchers do not also give satisfactory information about the approach used in their data analysis. For example, Apan et al (2012) point out that qualitative data can always be analysed through a template analysis or the editing style approach. None of these approaches is described by the researchers. Besides, there is no clear description of the rationale used by the researchers have developed his themes. Ultimately, these shortcomings make it less convincing that the researcher’s findings are fully representative of his data.

Results

Coffey (2002) says that well-presented results of any type of study must not only present significant data but also provide a commentary on the non-significant data. Hence, the study must report all the data findings. A keen evaluation of how Murray presented his findings reveals a different scenario. The researchers only succeed in presenting both the significant results and fail to present insignificant results. For example, in presenting results regarding the parents’ positive encouragement as a positive reaction to offenders, the researcher presents an excerpt from the interviews indicating that:

“…probably just to do with the way my parents have maybe gone about things with me. Like because they do trust me, I don’t go behind their back. Like my friends, they’re not allowed to drink, so they end up doing it behind their back and then – my parents said they’d rather they knew about it and knew where I was and what I was doing than not know about anything and I thought that’s really a good way to go about it…” (Interview except by Murray).

This data was significant in identifying boundary setting and positive encouragement as examples of parents’ reaction towards offenses. Apan et al (2012) write that an adequate interpretation of qualitative data is one of the most prominent qualities of well-conducted qualitative research. Ideally, this is achieved by identifying and describing the theoretical perspectives, concepts, and a relationship between concepts, while integrating the meanings emerging from data to derive a conclusion over the phenomenon under study. A keen evaluation of Murray’s study reveals such coherence between the data and the derived concepts. For instance, the researchers use data from the interview to identify the concepts if love, moral guidance, praise, and support to be emerging as some parents’ reaction to offenders. This is connected to the qualitative data revealed below: “We’ve always been told, you know, what’s right and what’s wrong, and you get praised a lot. See if people praise you, you get self-confidence and its good having your family say ‘you did that well’ or ‘you know you can do better’…” (Interview except by Murray) In another scenario, the concept of parental monitoring is identified as part of the parent’s reaction to non-offenders. This is illustrated as follows: “…probably just to do with the way my parents have maybe gone about things with me. Like because they do trust me, I don’t go behind their back. Like my friends, they’re not allowed to drink, so they end up doing it behind their back and then – my parents said they’d rather they

This data was significant in identifying boundary setting and positive encouragement as examples of parents’ reaction towards offenses. Apan et al (2012) write that an adequate interpretation of qualitative data is one of the most prominent qualities of well-conducted qualitative research. Ideally, this is achieved by identifying and describing the theoretical perspectives, concepts, and a relationship between concepts, while integrating the meanings emerging from data to derive a conclusion over the phenomenon under study. A keen evaluation of Murray’s study reveals such coherence between the data and the derived concepts. For instance, the researchers use data from the interview to identify the concepts if love, moral guidance, praise, and support to be emerging as some parents’ reaction to offenders. This is connected to the qualitative data revealed below: “We’ve always been told, you know, what’s right and what’s wrong, and you get praised a lot. See if people praise you, you get self-confidence and its good having your family say ‘you did that well’ or ‘you know you can do better’…” (Interview except by Murray) In another scenario, the concept of parental monitoring is identified as part of the parent’s reaction to non-offenders. This is illustrated as follows: “…probably just to do with the way my parents have maybe gone about things with me. Like because they do trust me, I don’t go behind their back. Like my friends, they’re not allowed to drink, so they end up doing it behind their back and then – my parents said they’d rather they

Conclusion and Discussion

Apan et al (2012), indicate that a well-concluded study must place its findings within a body of existing literature i.e. the discussion must compare the results by making reference to other existing pieces of literature in the field under study. This is exactly what Murray did by comparing his findings with the findings of other researchers such as Kerr & Stattin (2000). Similar to what Kerr & Stattin found, Murray found that whether parents know the whereabouts of the young people depends on whether such information is disclosed to them by the same young people.

Ultimately, Murray recommend that based on the findings that parents will always display suboptimal parenting; social workers working with these families should ensure that they have adequate knowledge and skills in parenting at critical situations, so that they can be of help by offering guidance to parents and young people facing such situations. Evidently, this recommendation is justified by the study’s finding that many young people face suboptimal parenting, especially during a critical period.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Overview May Moon Walk London.

References

• ATKINSON, P. AND COFFEY, A. (2002) ‘Revisiting the Relationship Between Participant Observation and Interviewing’, in J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (ed.) Handbook of Interview Research, pp. 801–14. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• APAN, S. D., QUARTAROLI, M. T., & RIEMER, F. J. (2012). Qualitative research: an introduction to methods and designs. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
• BLOOR, M & WOOD, F. (2006) Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of ResearchConcepts. London: Sage.
• DEKEL, B, ABRAHAMS, N & ANDIPATIN, M (2018), ‘Exploring adverse parent-child relationships from the perspective of convicted child murderers: A South African qualitative study’, PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1–21
• GIVEN, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, Calif, Sage Publications.
• HENDERSHOT, K.A., DIXON, M., KONO, S.A., DONG, D.M. AND PENTZ, R.D. (2014) Patients’ perceptions of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in head and neck cancer: A qualitative, pilot study with clinical implications. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. Vol.20, pp. 213-218.
• KEEGAN, S. (2009). Qualitative research: good decision making through understanding people, cultures and markets. London, Kogan Page.
• LEAVY, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Ebooks.
• Lincoln, S., & Guba, G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. MAXWELL, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications. MURRAY Young people’s perspectives of being parented in critical situations: teenage non-offenders and desisters speak out, Child and Family Social Work 2013, 18, pp 467–476. cfs_866 7 MAY, T. (2002). Qualitative research in action. London, SAGE. Newell, R. and Burnard, P. (2011) Research for Evidence Based Practice in Healthcare(2nd Ed). Chichester: Wiley. PADGETT, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Los Angeles, Sage Publications.
• PENELOPE ABBOTT et al. (2018) ‘A Scoping Review of Qualitative Research Methods Used With People in Prison’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol 17 (2018). RIDENOUR, C. S., & NEWMAN, I. (2008). Mixed methods research: exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press. RUBIN, A., & BABBIE, E. R. (2010). Essential research methods for social work. Belmont, Calif, Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
• SUZANNE FRANCO (2016) ‘A Doctoral Seminar in Qualitative Research Methods: Lessons Learned’, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol 11, Pp 323-339 (2016), p. 323. SPEZIALE, H. S., & CARPENTER, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: advancing the humanistic imperative. Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. TAPPEN, R. M. (2010). Advanced nursing research: from theory to practice. Sudbury, Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
• VAN DEN BERG, A. AND STRUWIG, M. (2017) ‘Guidelines for Researchers Using an Adapted Consensual Qualitative Research Approach in Management Research’, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 15(2), pp. WILES, J. L., ALLEN, R. E. S. and BUTLER, R. (2016) ‘Owning My Thoughts Was Difficult: Encouraging Students to Read and Write Critically in a Tertiary Qualitative Research Methods Course’, Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(1).