Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework
Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-11-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Begley, CM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tobin, GA;Begley, CM
的目标。本文讨论了在研究中建立严谨性的文献。它描述了可靠性、有效性和泛化的方法论三位一体，并探讨了与在自然主义调查中建立严谨性有关的一些问题。那些在自然主义范式内工作的人质疑使用有效性，可靠性和概括性来证明定性研究的稳健性的问题。三角测量已被用于证明可确认性和完整性，并已成为确保范例可接受性的一种手段。诸如善良和可信度等新兴标准可用于评估自然主义查询的稳健性。认为跨范式的术语迁移是不恰当的；然而，如果我们拒绝有效性和可靠性的概念，我们就拒绝了严谨性的概念。拒绝严谨会破坏人们对定性研究作为一种有助于知识进步的系统过程的接受。需要考虑在定性调查中展示稳健性的新标准，如真实性，可信度和善良。当良善不被视为一个单独的结构，而是作为研究过程的一个整体和嵌入的组成部分时，它应该有助于确保整个研究的质量。三角测量是一种久经考验的完备性方法，特别是在混合方法研究中。当多种类型的三角测量被适当地用作“三角测量心态”时，它们接近结晶的概念，这允许无限多种角度的方法。定性研究人员需要明确他们如何以及为什么选择特定的合法化标准，以确保他们的调查的稳健性。提倡从原教旨主义的立场转向更多元的方法，作为使自然主义研究合法化的一种手段。
Aim. This paper discusses the literature on establishing rigour in research studies. It describes the methodological trinity of reliability, validity and generalization and explores some of the issues relating to establishing rigour in naturalistic inquiry.Background. Those working within the naturalistic paradigm have questioned the issue of using validity, reliability and generalizability to demonstrate robustness of qualitative research. Triangulation has been used to demonstrate confirmability and completeness and has been one means of ensuring acceptability across paradigms. Emerging criteria such as goodness and trustworthiness can be used to evaluate the robustness of naturalistic inquiry.Discussion. It is argued that the transference of terms across paradigms is inappropriate; however, if we reject the concepts of validity and reliability, we reject the concept of rigour. Rejection of rigour undermines acceptance of qualitative research as a systematic process that can contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Emerging criteria for demonstrating robustness in qualitative inquiry, such as authenticity, trustworthiness and goodness, need to be considered. Goodness, when not seen as a separate construct but as an integral and embedded component of the research process, should be useful in assuring quality of the entire study. Triangulation is a tried and tested means of offering completeness, particularly in mixed-method research. When multiple types of triangulation are used appropriately as the 'triangulation state of mind', they approach the concept of crystallization, which allows for infinite variety of angles of approach.Conclusion. Qualitative researchers need to be explicit about how and why they choose specific legitimizing criteria in ensuring the robustness of their inquiries. A shift from a position of fundamentalism to a more pluralistic approach as a means of legitimizing naturalistic inquiry is advocated.