Carter Stacy M, Jordens Christopher F C, McGrath Catherine, Little Miles
Centre for Values, Ethics, and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2206, Australia.
Qual Health Res. 2008 Sep;18(9):1264-76. doi: 10.1177/1049732308321753.
In this article, we examine participants' talk about qualitative research. We provide empirical support for post-structural theorizations of the interview and propose three distinct but related dimensions of qualitative research: emotional, purposive/relational, and epistemic/ontological. In this study, participants often became upset but constructed participation as enjoyable and cathartic. The purpose of participation was to assist the communities to which one belonged. Participation was an active, reflexive practice that reconstructed the self and changed knowledge about one's self. This latter epistemic/ontological dimension of participation appeared to be the most compelling for participants, but it is also the hardest to observe, with implications for how we consider the costs and benefits of participation. We suggest two practical measures for researchers and institutional review boards to consider in light of our findings: routinely asking questions about the research experience in qualitative studies and reformulating patient information statements to particularize them to qualitative research.
在本文中，我们考察了参与者对定性研究的讨论。我们为访谈的后结构理论化提供了实证支持，并提出了定性研究的三个不同但相关的维度：情感维度、目的/关系维度以及认知/本体论维度。在本研究中，参与者常常感到不安，但却将参与构建为愉快且具有宣泄作用的体验。参与的目的是帮助自己所属的社区。参与是一种积极的、反思性的实践，它重构了自我并改变了关于自身的认知。参与的这一认知/本体论维度似乎对参与者最具吸引力，但也是最难观察到的，这对我们如何考量参与的成本和收益具有启示意义。鉴于我们的研究结果，我们建议研究人员和机构审查委员会考虑两项切实可行的措施：在定性研究中常规性地询问有关研究体验的问题，并重新制定患者信息声明，使其针对定性研究进行细化。
