Meyrick Jane
J Health Psychol. 2006 Sep;11(5):799-808. doi: 10.1177/1359105306066643.
Qualitative research has an enormous amount to contribute to the fields of health, medicine and public health but readers and reviewers from these fields have little understanding of how to judge its quality. Work to date accurately reflects the complexity of the theoretical debate required but may not meet the needs of practitioners attempting to apply qualitative work in reviews of evidence. This article describes a simple, practitioner-focused framework for assessing the rigour of qualitative research that attempts to be inclusive of a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. An extensive review of the literature, contributions from expert groups and practitioners themselves lead to the generation of two core principles of quality: transparency and systematicity, elaborated to summarize the range of techniques commonly used, mirroring the flow of the research process. The complexities discovered are only summarized here. Finally, outstanding issues such as 'how much transparency is enough?', are flagged up.
定性研究对健康、医学和公共卫生领域有着巨大的贡献，但这些领域的读者和审稿人对如何评判其质量了解甚少。迄今为止的工作准确反映了所需理论辩论的复杂性，但可能无法满足试图在证据综述中应用定性研究的从业者的需求。本文描述了一个简单的、以从业者为中心的框架，用于评估定性研究的严谨性，该框架试图涵盖一系列认识论和本体论观点。对文献的广泛综述、专家小组和从业者自身的贡献，促成了两个质量核心原则的产生：透明度和系统性，并对其进行了详细阐述，以总结常用技术的范围，反映研究过程的流程。这里仅总结发现的复杂性。最后，还提出了一些突出问题，如“多少透明度才足够？”
