Department of General Practice Section, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Med Educ. 2010 Apr;44(4):358-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03611.x.
The growing popularity of less familiar methodologies in medical education research, and the use of related data collection methods, has made it timely to revisit some basic assumptions regarding knowledge and evidence.
This paper outlines four major research paradigms and examines the methodological questions that underpin the development of knowledge through medical education research.
This paper explores the rationale behind different research designs, and shows how the underlying research philosophy of a study can directly influence what is captured and reported. It also explores the interpretivist perspective in some depth to show how less familiar paradigm perspectives can provide useful insights to the complex questions generated by modern healthcare practice.
This paper concludes that the quality of research is defined by the integrity and transparency of the research philosophy and methods, rather than the superiority of any one paradigm. By demonstrating that different methodological approaches deliberately include and exclude different types of data, this paper highlights how competing knowledge philosophies have practical implications for the findings of a study.
在医学教育研究中,不太熟悉的方法越来越受欢迎,并且使用了相关的数据收集方法,因此现在及时重新审视一些关于知识和证据的基本假设是很有必要的。
本文概述了四个主要的研究范式,并考察了通过医学教育研究发展知识所依据的方法论问题。
本文探讨了不同研究设计背后的基本原理,并展示了研究的潜在研究哲学如何直接影响所捕捉和报告的内容。它还深入探讨了解释主义视角,以展示不太熟悉的范式视角如何为现代医疗实践中产生的复杂问题提供有用的见解。
本文的结论是,研究的质量是由研究哲学和方法的完整性和透明度来定义的,而不是任何一种范式的优越性。通过证明不同的方法学方法有意地包含和排除不同类型的数据,本文强调了竞争的知识哲学如何对研究的发现产生实际影响。