The Utility of In‐Depth Interviews for Studying the Meaning of Environmental Risk
The Utility of In‐Depth Interviews for Studying the Meaning of Environmental Risk
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/0033-0124.00167
复制
发表时间：
1999-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Baxter;J. Eyles
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Baxter;J. Eyles
本文探讨了深入访谈的效用，以了解个人和社区如何在社会上构建环境危害（威胁现象）的风险（威胁程度），并描述了一些挑战，防范威胁的可信度（定性严谨）。本文涉及的环境风险的社会建设的案例研究（巴克斯特1997年），并在定性研究（巴克斯特和Eyles 1997年）建立可信度的标准的关键评估之间的接口。审查强调的标准的应用和流行的设计和分析策略，如成员检查和研究人员三角测量的使用的挑战。虽然这些做法有问题，但这并不一定会损害这些做法的效用及其所要处理的标准。对质量工作的批判性评估必须超越仅仅提及用于防止对严谨性的威胁的各种策略。
This paper explores the utility of in-depth interviews for understanding how individuals and communities socially construct the risks (degree of threat) from environmental hazards (phenomena which threaten), and describes some challenges for guarding against threats to trustworthiness (qualitative rigor). The paper involves the interface between a case study of the social construction of environmental risk (Baxter 1997), and a critical appraisal of criteria for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research (Baxter and Eyles 1997). The review highlights challenges for the application of the criteria and the use of popular design and analysis strategies such as member checking and researcher triangulation. While such practices are problematic, this need not undermine the utility of these practices and the criteria they are meant to address. A critical appraisal of qualitative work must go beyond the mere mention of various strategies that are used to guard against threats to rigor.