Public Perspectives on COVID-19 Vaccination in South Asia

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic was a global health emergency that impacted the whole world. It not only affected the health of the people but also disturbed economies and daily lives of people globally (Ciotti et al., 2020). The introduction of COVID vaccination brought a sign of relief to the world. Now to stop the spreading of the virus, there was a need for effective vaccination campaigns to protect public health (Ndwandwe and Wiysonge, 2021). This report focuses on the regions of South Asia and presents the comparative analysis of two published research papers (Kumari et al., 2021 and Haque et al., 2021) that studied the public perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination in this region. 

The research question of this analysis is: How do different research approaches, underpinned by either a quantitative or qualitative methodology, contribute to our understanding of public perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination in South Asia?

The two research papers under study offer valuable insights into this question, each taking a distinct approach to study the same phenomenon. The first paper, titled "What Indians Think of the COVID-19 vaccine: A qualitative study comprising focus group discussions and thematic analysis,

Research Approaches

Following are the research approaches used in Paper 1 (Kumari et al., 2021) and in Paper 2 (Haque et al., 2021):

Paper 1: Kumari et al., 2021

Research Methodology Used (Nassaji, 2020):

Qualitative research is known for its focus on understanding the experiences, views, and behaviors of participants in a study. The thoughts and views of participants are analyzed in detail in this method instead of quantifying them. The authors in Paper 1 have applied this method for getting the views of Indian residents about the COVID-19 vaccine. Authors used this technique to get deep details about attitudes of people for COVID-19 vaccination acceptance.

Data Collection (Focus Group Discussions (Sim and Waterfield, 2019)): 

Focus group discussions (FGDs) were used for collecting data in Paper 1. FGDs are a qualitative data collection technique that takes small groups of participants and gathers their views. These groups were selected by using the principle of maximum diversity based on various social and demographic attributes and all participants were above 18 years of age. 

Method of Data Analysis (Thematic Analysis):

Paper 1 uses thematic analysis for analyzing the data that was collected in FGD. Researchers in Paper 1 conducted a comprehensive analysis for identifying the main themes that are connected to perception, attitude, concerns, and knowledge of people regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. Subsequently, these sub-themes were synthesized into the theme in focus, which encapsulated the views about the COVID-19 vaccine.

In this way, Paper 1 utilized qualitative research methods, including thematic analysis and the focus group discussions, to delve into the perspectives and attitudes of Indian residents regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.

Paper 2: Haque et al., 2021

Research Approach Used (Quantitative):

Paper 2 adopts a quantitative research approach to investigate the levels and factors that determine the COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in Bangladesh. Quantitative research focuses on statistical and numerical analysis. The focus is to identify patterns, relationships, and trends in data to draw conclusions about the research question.

Data Collection (Self-administered Semi-structured Questionnaire):

The data for Paper 2 was collected using semi-structured self-administered questionnaires. This data collection method involves providing participants with a structured questionnaire that contains predefined questions and response options. Participants in this study, who were adult Bangladeshi residents, were asked for doing the questionnaire. 

Method of Data Analysis (Statistical Software):

To analyze the data collected through the questionnaires, Paper 2 employed statistical software, specifically mentioning the use of STATA (Version 16.1). In this study, the data analysis likely involved descriptive statistics to summarize the key findings and inferential statistics such as logistic regression to explore the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Quantitative research, as used in Paper 2, provides a structured and systematic approach to examining the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination.

Philosophical Perspectives

Paper 1: Kumari et al, 2021

Epistemological Stance: 

Paper 1 adopts an interpretivist or constructivist epistemological stance (Levitt, 2021). This perspective acknowledges that knowledge is subjective and socially constructed.

Ontological Stance: 

From an ontological standpoint, Paper 1 assumes a relativist position. It recognizes that reality is multifaceted, and that individuals' realities may differ based on their experiences and cultural backgrounds (Afubwa and Kauka, 2023). In this context, Paper 1 acknowledges that there can be multiple interpretations and perspectives regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.

Reflecting Qualitative Approach: 

The qualitative approach in Paper 1 aligns with these philosophical perspectives by valuing the in-depth exploration of participants' experiences and perspectives. It seeks to capture the diversity of views and understand the complex, context-dependent nature of people's beliefs about the vaccine.

Paper 2: Haque et al, 2021

Epistemological Stance: 

Paper 2 takes a positivist or objectivist epistemological stance. It assumes that knowledge can be objectively measured and quantified through empirical observations (Afubwa and Kauka, 2023).

Ontological Perspective: 

Paper 2 adopts a realist viewpoint. It asserts that there is an existence of factual reality that is not dependent on individual perspectives (Afubwa and Kauka, 2023). Paper 2 assumes that there is a reality about the COVID-19 vaccine that its adoption can be measured and examined.

Reflecting Quantitative Approach: 

The quantitative approach in Paper 2 is uses data and measurements to understand the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine and to find out the factors that impact its acceptance. Authors collected data from a bigger group of people that made their findings more validated.

Comparing Underlying Philosophical Perspectives:

Paper 1: Kumari et al, 2021

Qualitative Approach: 

Paper 1 uses a hermeneutic or constructivist perspective on Epistemology. According to this perspective, knowledge is subjective and constructed socially. It also assumes a relativist ontological stance which means that reality and existence is dependent on the perspectives of people and their cultural beliefs (Peck and Mummery, 2017).

Strengths:

• Extracts the deep and detailed understandings of public perspectives.
• Helped in the exploration of cultural subtleties and contextual factors.

Weaknesses:

• Subjective data interpretation methods can be influenced by personal views and thus could lead to bias.
• Findings may not be easily generalizable to larger populations.

Paper 2: Haque et al, 2021

Quantitative Approach: Paper 2 takes a positivist or objectivist epistemological stance, aiming to measure and quantify knowledge through empirical observations. It adopts a realist ontological stance, assuming an objective reality that can be measured (Dominion Dominic, 2023).

Strengths:

• Provides numerical data that can be analyzed statistically.
• Allows for generalizability to a broader population.

Weaknesses:

• May oversimplify complex phenomena by reducing them to numbers.
• May miss nuances and cultural context present in qualitative data.

Contrasting Ethical Dimensions:

Paper 1: Kumari et al, 2021

Qualitative Approach: 

Qualitative research, such as in Paper 1, often involves ethical considerations related to informed consent, confidentiality, and ensuring that participants' voices and identities are protected. Researchers must navigate the potential for sensitive and personal information to emerge during open discussions (Sim and Waterfield, 2019).

Strengths:

• Ethical considerations prioritize participant consent and confidentiality.
• Researchers can address sensitive issues with care during discussions.

Weaknesses:

• Ethical concerns may arise when personal and sensitive information is shared.
• Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity can be challenging in qualitative research.

Paper 2: Haque et al, 2021

Quantitative Approach: Quantitative research, as in Paper 2, also involves ethical considerations, particularly in ensuring informed consent and protecting the privacy of participants.

Strengths:

• Ethical dimensions focus on informed consent and privacy.
• Structured questionnaires can minimize the risk of sharing sensitive information.

Weaknesses:

• Ethical issues related to data privacy must still be carefully managed.
• Limited capacity to address nuanced ethical concerns compared to qualitative approaches.

Comparing Methods of Data Collection:

Paper 1: Kumari et al, 2021

Qualitative Approach:

Paper 1 utilized focus group discussions (FGDs), allowing for interactive and in-depth conversations among participants. This method encourages the sharing of diverse perspectives and the exploration of nuanced views.

Strengths:

• Focus Group Discussions promote dynamic and participatory conversations.
• Detailed exploration of the perspectives and beliefs of participants.

Weaknesses:

• The need for coordination in group discussions takes a lot of time.
• Dominant people can influence the decisions and viewpoints of others, thus impacting the results of discussions.

Paper 2: Haque et al, 2021

Quantitative Approach:

Paper 2 used self-administered semi-structured questionnaires. This helped in collecting uniform data from a large sample. This technique helped in carrying out data collection and statistical analysis on the collected data effectively. 

Strengths:

• Efficiency in collecting data from a large sample.
• Structured questionnaires allow for standardized data collection.

Weaknesses:

• May miss out on the richness of individual narratives and context.
• Less flexibility in addressing unanticipated research questions.

Comparing Methods of Data Analysis:

Paper 1: Kumari et al, 2021

Qualitative Approach:

Paper 1 used thematic analysis to identify and explore key themes within qualitative data. This method is well-suited for uncovering patterns and understanding the depth of participants' views. Strengths lie in the ability to record subtle details and weaknesses may include limitations of subjective analysis.

Strengths:

• Thematic analysis identifies the recurring patterns in complicated diverse themes.
• Helps in subtle and deep understanding of qualitative data.

Weaknesses:

• Interpretation can be subjective that can inculcate bias in analysis.
• May not be suitable for statistical generalization.

Paper 2: Haque et al, 2021

Quantitative Approach:

Paper 2 used STATA (statistical software) for data analysis. This helped the authors in carrying out quantitative analysis of acceptance levels and determinants. This technique helped in rigorous statistical testing but the analysis lacks involvement of detailed individual narratives and beliefs.

Strengths:

• Statistical analysis provides objective and quantifiable results.
• Facilitates hypothesis testing and identifying determinants.

Weaknesses:

• May not uncover subtle or context-specific insights.
• Less suitable for exploring underlying reasons behind statistics.

Overall Reflection on Philosophical Differences:

The two papers reflect differing philosophical perspectives, each with their strengths and limitations. Paper 1, with its qualitative approach, emphasizes the depth and context of participants' experiences and perspectives. In contrast, Paper 2, utilizing a quantitative approach, provides broader, statistically quantifiable insights that can be applied to a larger population. The selection of the research technique and the decision of focus required for depth study or breadth study is dependent on the research objectives of the study of exploring public perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination.

Conclusion:

This report presents a comparative analysis of the research papers on public perspectives regarding COVID-19 vaccination in South Asia. It has discussed the intrinsic strengths and limitations of different research approaches. Paper 1 applies a qualitative study and provided detailed insights into people perspectives and their cultural subtleties that helped in deep understanding. 

The results of both approaches are very impactful. Qualitative methods are best for detailed context aware study and quantitative methods help in broader findings. The choice between these approaches is dependent on research objectives and the balance between depth and breadth.