The so called iterative approach (altering the research methods and the hypothesis as the study progresses, in the light of information gleaned along the way) used by qualitative researchers shows a commendable sensitivity to the richness and variability of the subject matter. Failure to recognise the legitimacy of this approach has, in the past, led critics to accuse qualitative researchers of continually moving their own goalposts. Though these criticisms are often misguided, there is, as Nicky Britten and colleagues have observed, a real danger “that the flexibility [of the iterative approach] will slide into sloppiness as the researcher ceases to be clear about what it is (s)he is investigating.”5 These authors warn that qualitative researchers must, therefore, allow periods away from their fieldwork for reflection, planning, and consultation with colleagues.
Evaluating papers that describe qualitative research
By its very nature, qualitative research is non-standard, unconfined, and dependent on the subjective experience of both the researcher and the researched. It explores what needs to be explored and cuts its cloth accordingly. It is debatable, therefore, whether an all-encompassing critical appraisal checklist along the lines of the Users' Guides to the Medical Literature 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 could ever be developed.
- 6 年前最佳解答
就其性質而言，定性研究是非標準，無側限，並依賴於主觀兩個研究者和研究經驗。它探討哪些需要加以探討，並相應地削減其布。這是值得商榷的，因此，無論是一個包羅萬象的批判性評價檢查表沿。用戶指南的線條醫學文獻6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19可以不斷得到發展。參考資料： Google翻譯