Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:21:59.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysing Qualitative Longitudinal Research in Evaluations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Jane Lewis
Jane Lewis*
Affiliation:
Qualitative Research Unit, National Centre for Social Research, 35 Northampton Square, London E-mail: j.lewis@natcen.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes the processes and objectives of qualitative longitudinal analysis in evaluation research, using a recent evaluation study – the evaluation of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot – as an example. It describes evaluation research as involving an interplay between four domains of change: individual, service, policy and structural, which makes longitudinal qualitative research a particularly rich data source. It outlines different types of change that may be evident: narrative change, reinterpretation by either participant or researcher, and the absence of change. The article describes how the Framework analysis method was used to analyse longitudinal qualitative research. It examines how the data can be read in different ways to combine cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis, and theme, case and group analysis, and discusses the kind of questions that can be asked of change in longitudinal qualitative evaluation studies.

Type
Qualitative Longitudinal Research for Social Policy
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 545 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Farrell, C., Nice, K., Lewis, J. and Sainsbury, R. (2006), Experiences of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 339, London: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Finch, J. (1986), Research and Policy: The Uses of Qualitative Methods in Social and Educational Research, London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Gershuny, J. (1998), ‘Thinking dynamically: sociology and narrative data’, in Leisering, L. and Walker, R. (eds), The Dynamics of Modern Society, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Holland, J., Thomson, R. and Henderson, S. (2004), Feasibility Study for a Possible Qualitative Longitudinal Study: Discussion Paper, Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
Molloy, D. and Woodfield, K., with Bacon, J. (2002), Longitudinal Qualitative Research Approaches in Evaluation Studies, Department for Work and Pensions Working Paper No. 7, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Mowlam, A. and Lewis, J. (2005), Exploring How General Practitioners Work With Patients on Sick Leave, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 257, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Nice, K. and Thornton, P. (2004), Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot: Employers' Management of Long-term Sickness Absence, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 227, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. (1995), ‘Longitudinal field research on change’, in Huber, G. and Van de Ven, A. (eds), Longitudinal Field Research Methods: Studying Processes of Organizational Change, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pope, C., Ziegland, S. and Mays, N. (2006), ‘Analysing qualitative data’, in Pope, C. and May, N. (eds), Qualitative Research in Health Care, London: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purdon, S., Stratford, N., Taylor, R., Natarajan, L., Bell, S. and Wittenburg, D. (2006), Impacts of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 342, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Rist, R. C. (2000), ‘Influencing the policy process with qualitative research’, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L. and O'Connor, W. (2003), ‘Carrying out qualitative analysis’, in Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (eds), Qualitative Research Practice, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Saldana, J. (2003), Longitudinal Qualitative Research: Analyzing Change Through Time, Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, I. (1999), Qualitative Evaluation, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. and Dillon, L. (2003), Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Stratford, N., Farrell, C., Natarajan, L. and Lewis, J. (2005), Taking Part in a Randomised Control Trial: A Participant's Eye-view of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 273, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. and Holland, J. (2003), ‘Hindsight, foresight and insight: the challenges of longitudinal qualitative research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 3, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. and Leisering, L. (1998), ‘New tools: towards a dynamic science of modern society’, in Leisering, L. and Walker, R. (eds), The Dynamics of Modern Society, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar