A Systematic Literature Review of Qualitative Longitudinal Studies: Possibilities and Limitations for Educational Studies

Format Type

Plenary

Format Type

Paper

Start Date

14-1-2021 2:30 PM

End Date

14-1-2021 2:50 PM

Abstract

Qualitative longitudinal methods seek to study change during a defined time period, and has a minimum of two measurements (Derrington, 2019; Saldaña, 2003; Vallance, 2005). Though Saldaña (2003) postulated that longitudinal studies should be conducted throughout long periods, there is “no clear definition of the meaning of ‘long’ in longitudinal research” (Corden & Millar, 2007, p. 586). Its extensive nature requires that researchers adapt the content of the questions asked to the participants, accommodating the changes observed during the research and its context (Corden & Millar, 2007; Holland et al., 2006). Despite the need for regular contact with the participants to keep data collection consistent and allow insightful understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (Derrington, 2019), its major limitation is maintaining the participants engaged in studies conducted through more extended periods (Saldaña, 2003). Because longitudinal qualitative studies can be particularly useful to the field of education, this presentation will introduce the results of a multi-stage systematic literature review using a concept mapping approach (Zhang, 2011) of qualitative longitudinal educational research in peer-reviewed articles published in the last ten years. The goal is to inform the audience of this approach’s limitations and possibilities applied to educational studies. Concept mapping applied to systematic literature reviews was the method used because it allowed the identification of nodes and links between key concepts of qualitative longitudinal research and education studies, their connections, relationships, and possible gaps to be addressed in future research (Alias & Suradi, 2008; Arruarte, Rueda, & Elorriaga, 2008; Carnot, 2006).

Keywords

qualitative longitudinal research, systematic literature review, concept mapping, educational studies

ORCID ID

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1835-8601

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Jan 14th, 2:30 PM Jan 14th, 2:50 PM

A Systematic Literature Review of Qualitative Longitudinal Studies: Possibilities and Limitations for Educational Studies

Qualitative longitudinal methods seek to study change during a defined time period, and has a minimum of two measurements (Derrington, 2019; Saldaña, 2003; Vallance, 2005). Though Saldaña (2003) postulated that longitudinal studies should be conducted throughout long periods, there is “no clear definition of the meaning of ‘long’ in longitudinal research” (Corden & Millar, 2007, p. 586). Its extensive nature requires that researchers adapt the content of the questions asked to the participants, accommodating the changes observed during the research and its context (Corden & Millar, 2007; Holland et al., 2006). Despite the need for regular contact with the participants to keep data collection consistent and allow insightful understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (Derrington, 2019), its major limitation is maintaining the participants engaged in studies conducted through more extended periods (Saldaña, 2003). Because longitudinal qualitative studies can be particularly useful to the field of education, this presentation will introduce the results of a multi-stage systematic literature review using a concept mapping approach (Zhang, 2011) of qualitative longitudinal educational research in peer-reviewed articles published in the last ten years. The goal is to inform the audience of this approach’s limitations and possibilities applied to educational studies. Concept mapping applied to systematic literature reviews was the method used because it allowed the identification of nodes and links between key concepts of qualitative longitudinal research and education studies, their connections, relationships, and possible gaps to be addressed in future research (Alias & Suradi, 2008; Arruarte, Rueda, & Elorriaga, 2008; Carnot, 2006).