RESEARCHING PUBLIC-HEALTH - BEHIND THE QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE
RESEARCHING PUBLIC-HEALTH - BEHIND THE QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0277-9536(94)e0103-y
复制
发表时间：
1995-02-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
BAUM, F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BAUM, F
关于研究公共卫生问题的适当方法的辩论趋于两极化。传统主义者提倡使用流行病学和其他从还原主义研究传统中提取的方法，他们倾向于贬低更具解释性的研究方法的潜在贡献。那些主张使用更多定性方法的人往往通过批评定量技术的贡献来确立这些方法的合法性。这些争论往往掩盖了在认识论和处理权力问题的方法上的更根本的差异，这些问题是由旨在与新公共卫生哲学相一致的研究提出的。本文认为，这些潜在问题对当代公共卫生辩论至关重要，这些方法只是用来进一步了解的工具，没有固有的健全或不健全的地位。公共卫生问题是由复杂的社会、经济、政治、生物、遗传和环境原因造成的。需要一系列的方法来解决这些问题，公共卫生研究人员在选择方法时折衷是最有效的。
Debates about appropriate methodologies for studying public health problems have tended to be polarized. Traditionalists, advocating the use of epidemiology and other methods drawn from a reductionist research tradition have tended to devalue the potential contribution of more interpretive research methods. Those advocating the use of more qualitative methods have often established the legitimacy of these methods by criticising the contribution of quantitative techniques. These debates often mask more fundamental differences in epistemology and approaches to dealing with the issues of power raised by research which aims to be compatible with the philosophy of the new public health. This paper argues that these underlying issues are crucial to contemporary public health debates and the methods are simply tools that are used to further knowledge and have no inherent status as sound or unsound. Public health problems result from complex social, economic, political, biological, genetic and environmental causes. A range of methods are needed to tackle these and public health researchers are most effective when they are eclectic in their choice of methods.