Skip to content

Misfitting the research process: shaping qualitative research ‘in the field’ to fit people living with dementia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages11
JournalInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume19
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 1 Aug 2019
DatePublished (current) - 10 Jan 2020

Abstract

It is increasingly recognised that people living with dementia should be included in qualitative research that foregrounds their voices, but traditional research approaches can leave less room for flexibility than is necessary. This article builds on others who have examined the challenges and rewards of the qualitative research process with people living with dementia. With reference to a specific project on communication and dementia, the research design adaptations needed at each step to turn a ‘misfit’ into a ‘fit are examined. Misfitting, as a concept related to social practice theories, is used to argue the need for a co-produced and flexible approach to research design and data collection. Recommendations include: being willing to adapt research methods, data collection locations and aims of the project to fit participants’ competencies, preferences and realities; spending sufficient time getting to get to know staff and potential participants to build relationships; working round care practices and routines to minimise disruption; using observational/visual methods can help include people living with dementia at each stage. People with dementia require researchers in the field to be creative in their methods, reflexive in their approach, and person-centred in their goals. Those adaptations can fundamentally change the ways in which the social practice of research is shaped.

    Research areas

  • methods in qualitative inquiry, observational research, conversation analysis, community based research, case study

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Sage at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1609406919895926. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 228 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups