University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing, 7460 Carrington Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362.
"Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description?" (Sandelowski, 2000) was written to critique the prevailing tendency in qualitative health research to claim the use of methods that were not actually used and to clarify a methodological approach rarely identified as a distinctive method. The article has generated several misconceptions, most notably that qualitative description requires no interpretation of data. At the root of these misconceptions is the persistent challenge of defining qualitative research methods. Qualitative description is a "distributed residual category" (Bowker & Star, 2000). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press) in the classification of these methods. Its value lies not only in the knowledge its use can produce, but also as a vehicle for presenting and treating research methods as living entities that resist simple classification.
《定性描述:缘何销声匿迹?》(Sandelowski,2000)一文主要对当时定性健康研究领域盛行的一种趋势进行了批判,该趋势是指在研究中声称使用了某些实际并未使用的方法,并对一种很少被认定为独特方法的方法进行了澄清。这篇文章引发了一些误解,其中最主要的是定性描述不需要对数据进行解释。造成这些误解的根源在于对定性研究方法的持续定义挑战。定性描述是这些方法分类中的“分布式剩余类别”(Bowker & Star,2000)。马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社)。它的价值不仅在于其使用所产生的知识,还在于它作为一种手段,将研究方法呈现和视为具有生命力的实体,使其免受简单分类的影响。