What's in a Name? Qualitative Description Revisited
What's in a Name? Qualitative Description Revisited
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/nur.20362
复制
发表时间：
2010-02-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Sandelowski, Margarete
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sandelowski, Margarete
“定性描述发生了什么？“（Sandelowski，2000）是写来批评流行的趋势，在定性健康研究声称使用的方法，实际上并没有使用，并澄清一种方法的方法，很少被确定为一个独特的方法。这篇文章产生了一些误解，最明显的是定性描述不需要解释数据。这些误解的根源在于定义定性研究方法的持续挑战。定性描述是一个“分布残差范畴”（Bowker &星星，2000）。剑桥，MA：The MIT Press）对这些方法进行分类。它的价值不仅在于它的使用可以产生的知识，而且还在于它是一种工具，可以将研究方法作为抵制简单分类的活实体来呈现和对待。(C)2009 Wiley Periodicals，Inc. Res Nurs Health 33：77-84，2010
"Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description?" (Sandelowski, 2000) was written to critique the prevailing tendency in qualitative health research to claim the use of methods that were not actually used and to clarify a methodological approach rarely identified as a distinctive method. The article has generated several misconceptions, most notably that qualitative description requires no interpretation of data. At the root of these misconceptions is the persistent challenge of defining qualitative research methods. Qualitative description is a "distributed residual category" (Bowker & Star, 2000). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press) in the classification of these methods. Its value lies not only in the knowledge its use can produce, but also as a vehicle for presenting and treating research methods as living entities that resist simple classification. (C) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Res Nurs Health 33:77-84, 2010