• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Qualitative health research >Who Do We Think We Are? Disrupting Notions of Quality in Qualitative Research
【24h】

Who Do We Think We Are? Disrupting Notions of Quality in Qualitative Research

机译：我们认为我们是谁？ 在定性研究中扰乱质量概念

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The purpose of this article is to illuminate our troubles with, and troubling of, the trustworthiness dimension of balancing subjectivity and reflexivity, in qualitative research. This article evolved from debriefing sessions between three novice researchers working on a qualitative research study aimed at building understandings of the relational dynamics between adults with developmental disability diagnoses (ADevD) and their caregiving families. Following data collection, coauthors discussed interview experiences they had personally found challenging. These experiences constitute a point of departure for our examination of our researcher positions. We present a delineation of three research tensions, in the form of short reflexive vignettes, each rooted in concern with possibly contradicting our goals of facilitating and expanding participant autonomy. We follow with recommendations about how, as researchers, our endeavor to understand participants with less conventional communication can be used to reflect and inform navigating difficulties universal to qualitative research.
机译：本文的目的是阐明我们在定性研究中，在平衡主观性和自反性的可信度维度上遇到的困难和困扰。这篇文章是由三名从事定性研究的新手研究人员之间的情况介绍会演变而来的，目的是建立对成人发育障碍诊断（ADevD）及其护理家庭之间关系动态的理解。在收集数据之后，合著者讨论了他们个人认为具有挑战性的采访经历。这些经历构成了我们审查研究人员职位的出发点。我们提出了三种研究紧张关系的描述，以简短的反思性小插曲的形式，每一种都源于对可能与我们促进和扩大参与者自主性的目标相矛盾的担忧。作为研究人员，我们会提出建议，如何利用我们对不太传统交流参与者的理解来反映和告知定性研究中普遍存在的困难。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号