Frameworks for Change in Hearing Research: Valuing Qualitative Methods in the Real World

Abstract

In this article, we examine ecological validity in hearing science from a qualitative methodological perspective. We present an overview of qualitative methods, presenting their key characteristics and contrasting these techniques with quantitative approaches to enquiry. We argue that ecological validity sits at the heart of the qualitative paradigm and seek to clearly emphasize the methodological gap that could be effectively filled by qualitative or mixed methods. In doing so, we discuss qualitative methods that may work particularly well in enhancing ecological validity in hearing science and explore their range of applications in this field. These approaches can be applied to a wide range of hearing health research questions to present a unique understanding of people’s experiences of disease and disability, indicating gradations of personal health and illness in nuanced ways. We acknowledge and commend the current expansion of qualitative methods within hearing science and present recommendations for increasing ecological validity, both in the design of future studies and in the context of the wider research cycle. We call on qualitative researchers to strive for transparency, rigor, and trustworthiness and highlight challenges to be overcome if qualitative methods are to contribute to effective, efficient research strategies. To facilitate the transference of high-quality research findings into practice, we stress the need for joined-up working to create a research culture that promotes coproduction of ecologically valid research designs, involving not only hearing researchers but also implementation scientists, hearing healthcare professionals and, most importantly, people with hearing loss for whom these efforts could make a difference.

Leadership transition and survival strategies for family-owned SMEs in an emerging economy

“…The qualitative research used endorses a researcher's subjectivity and the “superiority of idealism, constructivism, humanism and relativism and takes into consideration the social, cultural and situational examinations of other's wellbeing, thereby enabling the incorporation of the partakers' opinions, interviews, behaviours and experiences with analysis of data for further explanation (Rapport and Braithwaite, 2018; Rapport and Hughes, 2020). Additionally, the qualitative method enables researchers to evaluate and attain rational conclusions from theoretical documentation and archives, which may also include visual data in the form of photographs, videos, maps and other visual representations, which may be challenging to carry out using the quantitative method (Rapport and Braithwaite, 2018; Rapport and Hughes, 2020).…”

Community Perspectives on Hearing Loss in Rural Alaska

“…This work aligns with increasing calls for the use of qualitative methods in hearing research to foster ecological validity in trial findings (Keidser et al 2020;Rapport & Hughes 2020). We present qualitative findings produced from a mixed methods design, which provide an example of how qualitative data can contextualize the experience of hearing loss for a particular group.…”

“…Our study engaged a wide range of stakeholders, recognizing the multilevel socioecological influences that impact health behavior, both generally and within hearing loss in particular ( Manchaiah et al 2015 ). By using qualitative methods to document and present this regional explanatory model of hearing loss as a part of a cluster randomized trial, we are answering the call for increased ecological validity in hearing research ( Dinos et al 2018 ; Keidser et al 2020 ; Rapport & Hughes 2020 ). This work builds upon qualitative research conducted in other contexts, which has documented knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs around ear and hearing-related health care to inform health care delivery ( Curry et al 2002 ; Crandell et al 2004 ; Manchaiah et al 2015 ; Zhao et al 2015 ).…”

“…Explanatory models of illness are fundamentally shaped by local sociocultural contexts, and health care providers can address patient and caregiver perceptions, expectations, and responses to diagnoses by better understanding these illness perspectives. Researchers have promoted the importance of this understanding within hearing health care research, specifically calling for the need for research and systems that prioritize ecological validity, defined as the degree to which research or clinical findings reflect real-life hearing-related function, activity, or participation ( Keidser et al 2020 ; Rapport & Hughes 2020 ). To achieve this understanding, Rapport and Hughes (2020 ) specifically called for the incorporation of qualitative methods into community-based hearing research.…”

Adults’ with hearing loss perceived listening ability in daily communication: protocol for a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

“…In the published literature, qualitative inquiry in hearing science has focused mainly on the social, cultural, psychological and emotional impacts of hearing loss. 49 Few qualitative studies have explored the attributes and behaviours of listening as experienced and reported by individuals with hearing loss. This review represents a novel approach to the study of listening in hearing loss.…”