Grubs Robin E, Piantanida Maria
Department of Human Genetics, The University of Pittsburgh, A300 Crabtree Hall, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
J Genet Couns. 2010 Apr;19(2):99-111. doi: 10.1007/s10897-009-9270-8. Epub 2010 Feb 2.
As qualitative inquiry has gained wider acceptance in genetic counseling research, it has become increasingly important for researchers and those who evaluate their work to recognize the diversity of methods that fall under this broad umbrella. Some of these methods adhere to the traditional conventions of scientific research (e.g., objectivity, reliability, validity, replicability, causality and generalizability). When such studies are evaluated by reviewers who are well versed in scientific methods, the rigor of the study may be readily apparent. However, when researchers are using methods that do not conform to traditional scientific conventions, the distinction between well conducted and poorly conducted studies may become more difficult to discern. This article focuses on grounded theory because it is a widely used qualitative method. We highlight key components of this method in order to contrast conventions that fall within a scientific paradigm to those that fall within an interpretivist paradigm. The intent is to illustrate how the conventions within these two different paradigms yield different types of knowledge claims--both of which can advance genetic counseling theory and practice.
随着质性研究在遗传咨询研究中得到更广泛的认可,对于研究人员以及评估他们工作的人来说,认识到这一广泛领域内方法的多样性变得越来越重要。其中一些方法遵循科学研究的传统惯例(例如客观性、可靠性、有效性、可重复性、因果关系和普遍性)。当精通科学方法的评审人员对这类研究进行评估时,研究的严谨性可能会很明显。然而,当研究人员使用不符合传统科学惯例的方法时,区分开展良好的研究和开展不佳的研究可能会变得更加困难。本文重点关注扎根理论,因为它是一种广泛使用的质性方法。我们强调这种方法的关键组成部分,以便将科学范式内的惯例与解释主义范式内的惯例进行对比。目的是说明这两种不同范式内的惯例如何产生不同类型的知识主张——这两种主张都可以推动遗传咨询理论和实践的发展。