Universidade Federal de São Paulo-UNIFESP, Department of Psychobiology, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo-USP, Department of Social Psychology, São Paulo, Brazil.
Explore (NY). 2023 Jan-Feb;19(1):6-13. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2022.04.004. Epub 2022 Apr 12.
The importance of spirituality as a research topic has been increasingly recognized, which has led to several studies on the topic. Areas including psychology, medicine, and nursing have produced studies on spirituality under a plurality of definitions and methods, which reveals the complexity of the theme. However, this has resulted in a range of potential problems, including: (1) the use of overlapping and contradictory terms between studies, or even within the same study, (2) research methodologies that do not fit the definitions (sometimes unreflectively) assumed by the authors, (3) difficulties, or even the impossibility, of comparing the results of studies, (4) controversies in respect of the inclusion/exclusion of secular groups in research on spirituality, and (5) ambiguous measurements, often being exclusively dependent on each participant's individual interpretation of what spirituality means. This article discusses these problems, recommends theoretical and methodological alternatives and presents taxonomy of definitions of spirituality.
灵性作为一个研究课题的重要性已日益得到认可,这促使人们针对该主题展开了多项研究。心理学、医学和护理学等领域采用多种定义和方法对灵性进行了研究,这揭示出该主题的复杂性。然而,这也带来了一系列潜在的问题,包括:(1)研究之间甚至同一研究内使用重叠且相互矛盾的术语;(2)研究方法不符合作者假设的定义(有时是无意识地);(3)难以甚至不可能比较研究结果;(4)在灵性研究中纳入/排除世俗群体方面存在争议;(5)测量方法不明确,往往仅依赖于每个参与者对灵性含义的个人理解。本文讨论了这些问题,推荐了一些理论和方法上的替代方案,并提出了灵性定义的分类法。