Degeling Chris, Rock Melanie
Faculty of Social Science, Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Front Vet Sci. 2020 Feb 18;7:70. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00070. eCollection 2020.
The One Health concept has inspired a rich vein of applied research and scholarly reflection over the past decade, yet with little influence from qualitative methodologists. With this overview, we describe the underpinning assumptions, purposes, and potential pitfalls of data collection techniques and methods of data analysis in key qualitative research methodologies. Our aim is to enhance One Health collaborations involving qualitative researchers, veterinary epidemiologists, and veterinary economists. There exist several distinct traditions of qualitative research, from which we draw selectively for illustrative purposes. Notwithstanding important distinctions, we emphasize commonalities and the potential for collaborative impact. The most important commonality is a shared focus on contextualizing human behavior and experience-culturally, economically, historically, and socially. We demonstrate that in-depth attention to context can assist veterinary economists and epidemiologists in drawing lessons from the implementation of policies and programs. In other words, qualitative researchers can assist One Health teams in distilling insights from "success stories," but also from adverse events and unintended consequences. As a result, qualitative researchers can contribute to One Health research and policy discussions by formulating more accurate and contextually-relevant parameters for future quantitative studies. When performed well, qualitative methodologies can help veterinary economists and epidemiologists to develop impactful research questions, to create more accurate and contextually-relevant parameters for quantitative studies, and to develop policy recommendations and interventions that are attuned to the political and socio-cultural context of their implementation. In sketching out the properties and features of influential methodologies, we underscore the value of working with seasoned qualitative researchers to incorporate questions about "what," "how," and "why" in mixed-methods research designs.
在过去十年中，“同一健康”概念激发了大量应用研究和学术思考，但定性方法学家的影响甚微。通过本综述，我们描述了关键定性研究方法中数据收集技术和数据分析方法的基本假设、目的及潜在陷阱。我们的目标是加强涉及定性研究人员、兽医流行病学家和兽医经济学家的“同一健康”合作。定性研究存在几种不同的传统，我们从中进行有选择的借鉴以作说明。尽管存在重要差异，但我们强调其共性以及合作产生影响的潜力。最重要的共性是共同关注在文化、经济、历史和社会背景下理解人类行为和经历。我们表明，深入关注背景可以帮助兽医经济学家和流行病学家从政策和项目的实施中吸取经验教训。换句话说，定性研究人员可以帮助“同一健康”团队从“成功案例”以及不良事件和意外后果中提炼见解。因此，定性研究人员可以通过为未来的定量研究制定更准确且与背景相关的参数，为“同一健康”研究和政策讨论做出贡献。如果执行得当，定性方法可以帮助兽医经济学家和流行病学家提出有影响力的研究问题，为定量研究创建更准确且与背景相关的参数，并制定与实施的政治和社会文化背景相适应的政策建议和干预措施。在勾勒有影响力的方法的特性和特征时，我们强调与经验丰富的定性研究人员合作在混合方法研究设计中纳入关于“是什么”“如何”和“为什么”问题的价值。
