Are qualitative methods misunderstood?
- PMID: 11529607
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00582.x
Are qualitative methods misunderstood?
Abstract
Qualitative research methods are increasingly utilised by health researchers. Along with this the criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are changing from a natural science model to an interpretative social science model. This is a product of the realisation by health researchers that qualitative methods utilise a different epistemology to statistical methods. I demonstrate that a recent article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health draws on a now outdated natural science methodology of assessing bias in focus groups. Drawing on interpretativist social science theory and recent work in the British Medical Joumal I argue for the importance of examining the social contexts through which qualitative data is produced.
Comment in
-
Yes, qualitative methods are often misunderstood.Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Oct;25(5):470; author reply 471-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00660.x. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001. PMID: 11688630 No abstract available.
-
Storm in a qualitative teacup?Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Oct;25(5):470; author reply 471-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00661.x. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001. PMID: 11688631 No abstract available.
-
In defence of flexible qualitative researchers.Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Oct;25(5):471; author reply 471--2. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00662.x. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001. PMID: 11688632 No abstract available.
-
Meanings and interpretations.Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Dec;25(6):574. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00330.x. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001. PMID: 11825000 No abstract available.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources