What ‘works’ when retracing sample members in a qualitative longitudinal study?

Abstract

Attrition represents a significant obstacle to overcome in any longitudinal research project. It is, perhaps, most keenly felt when the data collected are from a qualitative study, since, unlike quantitative longitudinal research, weighting factors cannot be applied to 'correct' for any biases in the achieved sample and even a small number of 'lost' respondents can equate to a large percentage of the original sample. It is perhaps because of qualitative longitudinal research's (QLR) reliance on, generally speaking, smaller samples that few have been able to shed much light on which re-contacting procedures are associated with achieving higher rates of retention. In this article, using data from a fifth sweep of a larger but particularly challenging cohort of 199 former probationers, we explore the strategies which helped us maintain high levels of retention in a QLR study. The article contains many practical suggestions which others planning or undertaking similar studies may find useful.Keywords: qualitative longitudinal research (QLR); retention; follow-up studies Introduction Whilst qualitative longitudinal studies have become popular, there have been few efforts to provide guidance on maintaining contact with cohort members over time. Often this is because samples are small, often non-deviant, and conducted by single researchers; consequently: (a) it is relative easy to keep in contact with sample members since there are few of them, and they have little reason to conceal their identities; and (b) small numbers do not readily enable researchers to distil lessons about 'what worked' in maintaining contact over years or decades. Herein we unpack lessons which may be transferable to other qualitative longitudinal research (QLR) studies. The sample size (n = 199) enables us to make suggestions about 'what works' which other QLR studies have not been able to.We start by reviewing what is known about retention in longitudinal research, before describing our aims and objectives more thoroughly. We then outline the project and present our findings. We conclude with a consideration of ethical matters and suggestions for those undertaking QLR studies. Our aim is to distil lessons about how to most effectively re-trace sample members in QLR research. We begin by outlining QLR studies and what is currently known about maintaining QLR samples.

Going back: ‘Stalking’, talking and researcher responsibilities in qualitative longitudinal research

“…So, while the practical steps of re-establishing contact, reconnecting with participants and going back can be documented (Farrall et al, 2015), the effects of this on our participants may be less clear. A characteristic of the data collected in QLR is its richness, resulting from the telling of subjective experiences around personal events and change.…”

“…Accessing samples -again: some practical and ethical reflections and steps As noted earlier the methodological concerns with sample attrition found in quantitative research have until very recently, not been a similar concern in QLR (see Farrall et al, 2015). This is related in part to methodological concerns in quantitative research with sample size, representativeness and controlling for biases, and in such matters sample attrition needs to be accounted for.…”

“…Similarly QLR involves research relationships which 'need to be sustained and navigated' (Neale, 2013, p. 15) and engages particular ideas of 'participation' (Birch & Miller, 2012) and ongoing 'informed' consent (Miller & Birch, 2012;Miller & Boulton, 2007;Wiles, Crow, Heath, & Charles, 2008), which are typically different to those in oneoff interview designs (Henwood & Shirani, 2012a, 2012bNeale & Flowerdew, 2003). Whilst in quantitative research, problems of sample attrition have featured in methodological discussion, in QLR studies 'there have been few efforts to provide guidance on how to maintain contact with a sample' (Farrall, Hunter, Sharpe, & Calverley, 2015;Ward & Henderson, 2003). As noted earlier, this paper explores the process of rekindling research projects and prolonging their longitudinal dimensions in ways which had not been anticipated at their inception.…”

“…Record keeping (on a spreadsheet which can be easily updated) becomes an important research tool when retracing and maintaining samples in QLR, both to build as transparent a picture of the sample as possible and also to guard against coercion (see below). The outcome of any attempt at re-access/contact should also be noted, for example that contact has been achieved, but interview declined (Farrall et al, 2015). Of the 17 participants in the first phase of the Fatherhood study, contact was established with 11 of the fathers and 10 have (so far) been interviewed.…”

Sociological stalking? Methods, ethics and power in longitudinal criminological research

“…Cotter et al, 2005;Farrall et al, 2016;Leibrich, 1994). Accordingly, methodological accounts have documented the relative ÔsuccessÕ of different retracing methods, such as traditional approaches (e.g.…”