Chapple A, Rogers A
The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, The University of Manchester, UK.
Fam Pract. 1998 Dec;15(6):556-61. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.6.556.
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.
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。