Barbour R S
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Hull, UK.
Qual Health Res. 1998 May;8(3):352-61. doi: 10.1177/104973239800800306.
Although the advisability of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches has been questioned on the grounds of incompatibility of epistemological assumptions that underpin the two paradigms, mixing methods within the qualitative paradigm has been viewed as a more straightforward enterprise. This article challenges this view, highlighting the existence of several qualitative traditions, each with its own distinctive set of assumptions about what constitutes appropriate research questions; theoretical frameworks; research settings; relationships with those whom we study; techniques for eliciting data; form and content of data; and approaches to analyzing, presenting, and disseminating data. Multimethod qualitative approaches can be seen to occupy a contested domain. Analytical rigor would be strengthened by acknowledging and addressing the potentially contradictory assumptions on which one draws when seeking to combine qualitative methods. As qualitative researchers, it is incumbent on us to pay attention to context--not just in terms of the data collected but in terms of our own methodological positions.
尽管有人基于支撑这两种范式的认识论假设不兼容，对将定性和定量方法结合的可取性提出质疑，但在定性范式内混合方法被视为一项更直接的工作。本文对这一观点提出挑战，强调存在几种定性传统，每种传统对于什么构成适当的研究问题、理论框架、研究背景、与我们所研究对象的关系、获取数据的技术、数据的形式和内容以及分析、呈现和传播数据的方法都有其独特的一套假设。多方法定性方法可被视为占据了一个有争议的领域。通过承认并处理在试图结合定性方法时所依据的潜在相互矛盾的假设，分析的严谨性将得到加强。作为定性研究者，我们有责任关注背景——不仅是所收集数据的背景，还有我们自己的方法论立场。
