School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Res Nurs Health. 2011 Aug;34(4):342-52. doi: 10.1002/nur.20437. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
A commonplace in the qualitative research literature is that data can be interpreted in more than one way. Less commonly considered are how much the interpretive flexibility of data depends on the adequacy of researchers' interpretive repertoires and how it troubles the lines conventionally drawn between methods, primary and secondary analysis, and between valid and invalid interpretation. What largely differentiates inquiry is not whether it is qualitative or quantitative but rather the attitude taken toward the data generated in a study. The more varied the interpretive repertoire of researchers, the greater will be their capacity to be tuned in to and credibly account for the varied ways in which data can be seen and treated.
定性研究文献中的一个常见观点是，数据可以有多种解释方式。但较少被考虑的是，数据的解释灵活性在多大程度上取决于研究人员解释资源的充分性，以及它如何扰乱传统上在方法、主要和次要分析以及有效和无效解释之间划定的界限。在很大程度上，区分探究的不是它是定性的还是定量的，而是对研究中产生的数据所持的态度。研究人员的解释资源越多样化，他们就越有能力关注并可信地解释数据可以被看到和处理的各种方式。
