Barbour Rosaline S, Barbour Michael
Department of General Practice, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2003 May;9(2):179-86. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x.
The growing popularity of qualitative research has led to calls for it to be incorporated into the evidence base. It is argued that, in seeking to respond to this challenge, it is important that we recognize the important differences between qualitative and quantitative research and that we take this into account in developing a distinctive approach. This paper outlines the distinctive contribution made by qualitative research with regard to the nature of the curiosity involved, the iterative research process and its treatment of data, analysis and findings. We caution against simply importing templates developed for systematic review of quantitative work, and make suggestions with regard to developing a new model for evaluating and synthesizing qualitative work. The proposed new model takes a critical look at some of the assumptions underpinning systematic review, such as the process of literature searching and selection of relevant material. Although there is potential for checklist items--such as purposive sampling, respondent validation, multiple coding, triangulation and grounded theory--to be used over-prescriptively in evaluating qualitative papers, it is argued that a more creative engagement with these concepts could yield a distinctive approach more appropriate for this type of work. Moreover, we speculate that some of the questions thereby raised might be usefully applied to consideration of established procedures for reviewing quantitative work.
定性研究日益普及，促使人们呼吁将其纳入证据基础。有人认为，在应对这一挑战时，重要的是我们要认识到定性研究与定量研究之间的重要差异，并在制定独特方法时予以考虑。本文概述了定性研究在涉及的好奇心本质、迭代研究过程及其对数据的处理、分析和结果方面所做出的独特贡献。我们告诫不要简单地套用为定量研究系统评价而开发的模板，并就开发评估和综合定性研究工作的新模型提出建议。拟议的新模型批判性地审视了一些支撑系统评价的假设，如文献检索过程和相关材料的选择。尽管在评估定性论文时，诸如目的抽样、受访者验证、多重编码、三角验证和扎根理论等清单项目有可能被过度规范地使用，但有人认为，以更具创造性的方式运用这些概念可能会产生一种更适合此类工作的独特方法。此外，我们推测由此提出的一些问题可能会有益地应用于对定量研究既定评审程序的思考。
