Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
University of Newcastle, New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia.
Birth. 2022 Jun;49(2):175-178. doi: 10.1111/birt.12615. Epub 2022 Mar 13.
As two academics researching in the area of maternal health, we are increasingly concerned with what we see as a positivist turn in midwifery research. In this paper, we examine this idea of the quantification of midwifery research, using as an example the current esteem given to the systematic literature review, and its creep into other methodologies. We argue that the current favor toward quantitative research and expertise in midwifery academia risks the future of midwifery research by the lack of equal development of qualitative experts, diluting qualitative research rigor within the profession, and limiting the kinds of questions asked. We identify the similarity between the current prominence of quantitative research and medical dominance in midwifery and maintain that it is of vital importance to the profession (research and practice) that the proper attention, contemplation, and merit are given to qualitative research methods.
作为研究母婴健康领域的学者，我们越来越关注我们认为的助产研究中的实证主义转向。在本文中，我们使用当前系统文献综述受到的重视及其对其他方法学的渗透为例，来检验这种助产研究量化的观点。我们认为，当前对定量研究的偏好以及助产学术界的专业知识，有可能会因为缺乏对定性专家的同等重视，从而影响到未来的助产研究，使该专业的定性研究严谨性受到影响，并限制了问题的提出。我们发现当前定量研究的突出地位与医学在助产中的主导地位之间存在相似之处，并认为，对定性研究方法给予适当的关注、思考和重视，对该专业（研究和实践）至关重要。
