Barnsley Adult Learning Disabilities Specialist Health Service, South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Barnsley, UK; Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2014 Mar;27(2):85-96. doi: 10.1111/jar.12088. Epub 2014 Feb 4.
JARID has a long and positive association with qualitative research dating back to its first issue. This paper looks at the development of qualitative methods and their application in the field of intellectual disability (ID).
When invited to make a contribution on qualitative research for the 25th Anniversary of JARID, the present authors considered the options. We examined the frequency with which qualitative studies have been published in three major intellectual disability journals over a decade, and we considered attempting a systematic review or a meta-synthesis.
The volume of published studies has increased, but there were too many across a diverse range of topics for a systematic review of qualitative research in general; but not enough for a systematic review or meta-synthesis with a particular focus. However, there were many issues that needed to be aired. This paper therefore contains some critical reflections on the use of qualitative methods.
If we want to hear the voices of people who have ID then we need appropriate ways to do this. Qualitative methods are playing an increasing role in bringing the unknown about people who have ID into the known. The approach plays a valuable role in informing us about the experiences and lives of people who have ID. However, we have identified many methodological issues which will need to be further explored. At the same time, we need to develop methods to enable increased participation of people who have ID in some aspects of research. The participatory paradigm is more established in qualitative approaches as it lends itself to participation in generating research questions, developing interview questions, conducting interviews and even stages of the analysis. There are clearly areas that need to be addressed by trained researchers and the whole process will need some facilitation and support. Writing up for journals is one aspect that could be very problematic: so other forms of dissemination need to be explored.
JARID 与定性研究有着长期而积极的联系,可以追溯到第一期。本文着眼于定性方法的发展及其在智力残疾(ID)领域的应用。
当受邀为 JARID 成立 25 周年撰写一篇定性研究贡献时,作者考虑了各种选择。我们检查了在过去十年中,三种主要的智力残疾期刊上发表的定性研究的频率,我们考虑了进行系统评价或荟萃分析的可能性。
发表的研究数量有所增加,但由于涉及的主题范围广泛,且数量众多,因此无法对一般的定性研究进行系统评价;但对于特定焦点的系统评价或荟萃分析来说,数量又不够。然而,有许多问题需要提出。因此,本文包含了对定性方法使用的一些批判性思考。
如果我们想听到有智力残疾的人的声音,那么我们需要有适当的方法来实现。定性方法在将有智力残疾的人的未知领域转化为已知领域方面发挥着越来越重要的作用。这种方法在告知我们有智力残疾的人的经历和生活方面发挥了宝贵的作用。然而,我们已经确定了许多需要进一步探讨的方法问题。与此同时,我们需要开发方法,使有智力残疾的人能够更多地参与某些研究领域。参与范式在定性方法中更为成熟,因为它可以使有智力残疾的人参与提出研究问题、制定访谈问题、进行访谈甚至分析阶段。显然,有一些领域需要经过训练的研究人员来解决,整个过程需要一些促进和支持。向期刊投稿就是一个可能非常成问题的方面:因此需要探索其他形式的传播方式。