Deslandes Suely Ferreira, Iriart Jorge Alberto Bernstein
Instituto Fernandes Figueira, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Cad Saude Publica. 2012 Dec;28(12):2380-6. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2012001400017.
The current article aims to map and critically reflect on the current theoretical and methodological uses of research in the subfield of social and human sciences in health. A convenience sample was used to select three Brazilian public health journals. Based on a reading of 1,128 abstracts published from 2009 to 2010, 266 articles were selected that presented the empirical base of research stemming from social and human sciences in health. The sample was classified thematically as "theoretical/ methodological reference", "study type/ methodological design", "analytical categories", "data production techniques", and "analytical procedures". We analyze the sample's emic categories, drawing on the authors' literal statements. All the classifications and respective variables were tabulated in Excel. Most of the articles were self-described as qualitative and used more than one data production technique. There was a wide variety of theoretical references, in contrast with the almost total predominance of a single type of data analysis (content analysis). In several cases, important gaps were identified in expounding the study methodology and instrumental use of the qualitative research techniques and methods. However, the review did highlight some new objects of study and innovations in theoretical and methodological approaches.
本文旨在梳理并批判性地反思社会与人文科学在健康领域子学科中当前的理论和方法在研究中的应用情况。我们采用便利抽样法选取了三本巴西公共卫生期刊。基于对2009年至2010年发表的1128篇摘要的阅读，从中选取了266篇展示了源自社会与人文科学在健康领域研究实证基础的文章。样本按主题分为“理论/方法参考”“研究类型/方法设计”“分析类别”“数据生成技术”以及“分析程序”。我们依据作者的文字表述分析样本的主位类别。所有分类及各自变量都录入了Excel表格。大多数文章自述为定性研究且使用了不止一种数据生成技术。理论参考文献种类繁多，与之形成对比的是，单一类型的数据分析（内容分析）几乎占据主导地位。在若干案例中，我们发现定性研究技术和方法在阐述研究方法及工具使用方面存在重大空白。然而，该综述确实突出了一些新的研究对象以及理论和方法途径上的创新。
