Carr L T
Department of Professional Development, Wealden College of Health and Social Studies, East Surrey Hospital, Redhill, Surrey, England.
J Adv Nurs. 1994 Oct;20(4):716-21. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20040716.x.
The overall purpose of research for any profession is to discover the truth of the discipline. This paper examines the controversy over the methods by which truth is obtained, by examining the differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative research. The historically negative bias against qualitative research is discussed, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, with issues highlighted by reference to nursing research. Consideration is given to issues of sampling; the relationship between the researcher and subject; methodologies and collated data; validity; reliability, and ethical dilemmas. The author identifies that neither approach is superior to the other; qualitative research appears invaluable for the exploration of subjective experiences of patients and nurses, and quantitative methods facilitate the discovery of quantifiable information. Combining the strengths of both approaches in triangulation, if time and money permit, is also proposed as a valuable means of discovering the truth about nursing. It is argued that if nursing scholars limit themselves to one method of enquiry, restrictions will be placed on the development of nursing knowledge.
任何专业研究的总体目的都是发现该学科的真相。本文通过审视定量研究和定性研究之间的异同，探讨了关于获取真相方法的争议。文中讨论了历史上对定性研究的负面偏见，以及两种方法的优缺点，并通过护理研究突出了相关问题。文中还考虑了抽样问题；研究者与研究对象之间的关系；方法和整理的数据；效度；信度以及伦理困境。作者指出，两种方法都不优于对方；定性研究对于探索患者和护士的主观体验似乎非常有价值，而定量方法则有助于发现可量化的信息。如果时间和资金允许，在三角互证法中结合两种方法的优势，也被提议作为发现护理真相的一种有价值的手段。有人认为，如果护理学者将自己局限于一种探究方法，护理知识的发展将会受到限制。
