Literature DB >> 11168708

Arguments for 'British Pluralism' in qualitative health research.

M Johnson1, T Long, A White.   

Abstract

AIMS OF THE STUDY: This paper examines the argument that certain qualitative research methods can be used in 'pure' forms. Whilst rigid adherence to particular published procedures might be possible, we argue that in many cases this is neither necessary nor more likely to increase the validity of the research outcome. METHODOLOGICAL PURITY: In examining the works of well-known claimants to particular research approaches such as grounded theory and phenomenology we show that purity of method is uncommon. In particular it is possible to demonstrate that all published qualitative methods are subject to their own underlying relativist philosophy. The implication of this is that all are social constructions and that their execution will necessarily be negotiated in time and context.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that analysis of varied examples of qualitative research shows methods to be more flexible than is often admitted. What we describe as 'British Pluralism' is an attempt to accept this reality whilst maintaining rigour through integrity, clear accounts, reflexivity and constructive critique of one's own work and that of others.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11168708     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01659.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  3 in total

1.  Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations.

Authors:  Deborah J Cohen; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Disrupted breath, songlines of breathlessness: an interdisciplinary response.

Authors:  Alice Malpass; James Dodd; Gene Feder; Jane Macnaughton; Arthur Rose; Oriana Walker; Tina Williams; Havi Carel
Journal:  Med Humanit       Date:  2019-08-01

Review 3.  The Use of Research Methods in Psychological Research: A Systematised Review.

Authors:  Salomé Elizabeth Scholtz; Werner de Klerk; Leon T de Beer
Journal:  Front Res Metr Anal       Date:  2020-03-20
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.