Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
复制
发表时间：
2001-05-05
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Barbour, RS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barbour, RS
定性研究方法正受到前所未有的欢迎。尽管核对表无疑有助于这些方法得到更广泛的接受，但如果按照规定使用，这些方法可能会适得其反。不加批判地采用一系列“技术修复”（例如有目的的抽样、扎根理论、多重编码、三角测量和应答验证）本身并不具有严密性。在本文中，我讨论了这些程序的局限性，并认为没有什么可以代替系统和彻底地应用定性研究的原则。除非对定性研究背后的基本原理和假设有更广泛的理解，否则技术性修正将收效甚微。
Qualitative research methods are enjoying unprecedented popularity. Although checklists have undoubtedly contributed to the wider acceptance of such methods, these can be counterproductive if used prescriptively. The uncritical adoption of a range of “technical fixes”(such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) does not, in itself, confer rigour. In this article I discuss the limitations of these procedures and argue that there is no substitute for systematic and thorough application of the principles of qualitative research. Technical fixes will achieve little unless they are embedded in a broader understanding of the rationale and assumptions behind qualitative research.