Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis
Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.00314.x
复制
发表时间：
2005-08-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Burck, C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burck, C
社会科学中发展起来的许多定性研究方法都非常适合探索与系统领域相关的研究问题，并与系统思维非常吻合。本文简述了质性研究在系统心理治疗中的价值.我探讨了定性研究和系统治疗领域的一些平行发展，这些发展可以相互借鉴。三种定性方法，扎根理论的方法，话语分析和叙事分析，特别是有用的主观经验和意义的研究，简要概述。为了比较和对比这些方法，我讨论了他们的应用程序的试点研究有关的经验，生活在一个以上的语言。我展示了每种研究方法如何突出定性研究材料的不同方面，并解决不同的研究问题。这些方法如何可能进一步发展系统的研究提出的挑战。
Many of the qualitative research methods developed in the social sciences are well suited to explore research questions pertinent for the systemic field, and make a good fit with systemic thinking. In this paper 1 briefly outline the value of qualitative research for systemic psychotherapies. I explore some parallel developments in the field of qualitative research and systemic therapy which can inform each other. Three qualitative methodologies, a grounded theory approach, discourse analysis and narrative analysis, particularly useful for the research of subjective experience and meaning, are briefly outlined. To compare and contrast these methodologies, I discuss their application to a pilot study concerning the experiences of living life in more than one language. I demonstrate how each research methodology can highlight different aspects of qualitative research material and address different research questions. The challenge of how these methodologies may be further developed for systemic research is posed.