Suppr超能文献

好、坏、不同还是其他?定性研究中质量相关的信念、惯例及发展的范围综述

Good, bad, different or something else? A scoping review of the convictions, conventions and developments around quality in qualitative research.

作者信息

Salet Xavier, Gelissen John, Moors Guy, Wicherts Jelte

机构信息

Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

出版信息

R Soc Open Sci. 2025 Jun 25;12(6):242001. doi: 10.1098/rsos.242001. eCollection 2025 Jun.

Abstract

We present a scoping review of methodological papers in the social science literature covered in Scopus from 2017 to 2022. In this review, we document the shared norms, ideals and practices regarding the quality of qualitative research methodology. More specifically, we examined the regularly proposed idea that qualitative methodology is so diverse that it is unfeasible to establish shared quality standards. Coding of 111 articles yielded 17 categories that relate to key topics discussed in publications on research quality in qualitative research, such as the quality of the research process, integrity, reflexivity, ethics and transparency. These codes reflect both established ideals and new developments. We conclude that articles in our sample have many shared values in common, but that these values at this point do not yet translate into shared research practices or a common core for quality evaluation.

摘要

我们对2017年至2022年Scopus收录的社会科学文献中的方法论论文进行了范围综述。在本综述中,我们记录了关于定性研究方法质量的共同规范、理想和实践。更具体地说,我们审视了一个经常被提出的观点,即定性方法如此多样,以至于建立共同的质量标准是不可行的。对111篇文章的编码产生了17个类别,这些类别与定性研究中关于研究质量的出版物中讨论的关键主题相关,如研究过程的质量、完整性、反思性、伦理和透明度。这些编码既反映了既定的理想,也反映了新的发展。我们得出的结论是,我们样本中的文章有许多共同的价值观,但目前这些价值观尚未转化为共同的研究实践或质量评估的共同核心。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb4f/12187396/6798822646a2/rsos.242001.f001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验