Suppr超能文献

定性研究的明确指南:朝着正确方向迈出的一步、对“软”方法的辩护,还是一种社会学帝国主义形式?

Explicit guidelines for qualitative research: a step in the right direction, a defence of the 'soft' option, or a form of sociological imperialism?

作者信息

Chapple A, Rogers A

机构信息

The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, The University of Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Fam Pract. 1998 Dec;15(6):556-61. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.6.556.

Abstract

Within the context of health service research, qualitative research has sometimes been seen as a 'soft' approach, lacking scientific rigour. In order to promote the legitimacy of using qualitative methodology in this field, numerous social scientists have produced checklists, guidelines or manuals for researchers to follow when conducting and writing up qualitative work. However, those working in the health service should be aware that social scientists are not all in agreement about the way in which qualitative work should be conducted, and they should not be discouraged from conducting qualitative research simply because they do not possess certain technical skills or extensive training in sociology, anthropology or psychology. The proliferation of guidelines and checklists may be off-putting to people who want to undertake this sort of research, and they may also make it even more difficult for researchers to publish work in medical journals. Consequently, the very people who may be in a position to change medical practice may never read the results of important qualitative research.

摘要

在卫生服务研究的背景下,定性研究有时被视为一种“软性”方法,缺乏科学严谨性。为了提升在该领域使用定性方法的合理性,众多社会科学家编制了清单、指南或手册,供研究人员在开展和撰写定性研究工作时遵循。然而,从事卫生服务工作的人员应意识到,社会科学家对于定性研究工作的开展方式并非完全一致,不应仅仅因为他们不具备某些技术技能,或未接受社会学、人类学或心理学方面的广泛培训,就阻碍他们进行定性研究。指南和清单的泛滥可能会让想要进行此类研究的人望而却步,也可能使研究人员在医学期刊上发表研究成果变得更加困难。因此,那些或许有能力改变医疗实践的人可能永远都不会读到重要定性研究的结果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验