1 The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Qual Health Res. 2019 Jan;29(1):3-6. doi: 10.1177/1049732318813903.
As the body of available qualitatively derived knowledge expands, there is increasing temptation to capitalize on it to generate knowledge synthesis products. Concurrently, in the wake of an ever-expanding enthusiasm for evidence-based practice knowledge in health care, scholars are facing pressure to forgo the more narrative or interpretive form of literature review in favor of reviews that are positioned as explicitly systematic. This has created a context in which both new and seasoned scholars are, in increasing numbers, working with extant bodies of qualitative literature in ways that counter the very motivations that drove health researchers into qualitative methods in the first place. In this commentary, I trace the evolution of this trend, illustrating how a reasonable original intent has taken a misguided turn in the context of competing understandings and priorities in health care knowledge development. On this basis, I propose a strategic direction for this journal as a leader in what constitutes the meaningful application of qualitative research methodological approaches, including that which purports to represent synthesis of available knowledge, for the purposes of addressing the inherently complex challenges of the health field.
随着可用的定性知识体系的不断扩大，利用这些知识来生成知识综合产品的诱惑也越来越大。与此同时，在医疗保健领域对循证实践知识的热情不断高涨的背景下，学者们面临着放弃更具叙述性或解释性的文献综述形式，转而支持被定位为明确系统的综述的压力。这就造成了一种局面，越来越多的新老学者都以与最初推动健康研究人员采用定性方法的动机相悖的方式，利用现有的定性文献。在这篇评论中，我追溯了这一趋势的演变，说明了在健康知识发展中相互竞争的理解和优先事项的背景下，这种合理的初衷是如何误入歧途的。在此基础上，我为该期刊提出了一个战略方向，作为领导者，该期刊应合理应用定性研究方法，包括那些旨在代表现有知识综合的方法，以应对健康领域固有的复杂挑战。
