当言语无法表达时:对定性访谈创新诱导技术的综合评述。

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1111/medu.15555
Renate Kahlke, Lauren A Maggio, Mark C Lee, Sayra Cristancho, Kori LaDonna, Zahra Abdallah, Aakashdeep Khehra, Kushal Kshatri, Tanya Horsley, Lara Varpio
{"title":"当言语无法表达时:对定性访谈创新诱导技术的综合评述。","authors":"Renate Kahlke, Lauren A Maggio, Mark C Lee, Sayra Cristancho, Kori LaDonna, Zahra Abdallah, Aakashdeep Khehra, Kushal Kshatri, Tanya Horsley, Lara Varpio","doi":"10.1111/medu.15555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interviews are central to many qualitative studies in health professions education (HPE). However, researchers often struggle to elicit rich data and engage diverse participants who may find this strategy exclusionary. Elicitation techniques are strategies tailored to address these challenges, enhancing oral conversations through other forms of interaction-for example, participant photography and neighbourhood walks. These strategies are tailored to elicit the rich data needed to address complex problems and meaningfully engage participants. Unfortunately, guidance on these techniques is scattered across literatures from diverse fields. In this synthesis, we offer an overview of the elicitation techniques available and advice about how to choose between them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an integrative review, drawing on methodological literature from across the health and social sciences. Our interdisciplinary searches yielded 3056 citations. We included 293 citations that were methodologically focused and discussed elicitation techniques used in interviews with adults. We then extracted specific elicitation techniques, summarising each technique to capture key features, as well as strengths and weaknesses. From this, we developed a framework to help researchers identify challenges in their interview-based research and to select elicitation techniques that address their challenges.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>To enrich data, researchers might seek to shift conversations away from participants' entrenched narratives, to externalise conversations on sensitive topics, or to elicit affect, tacit knowledge or contextual details. When empowering participants, researchers might seek to increase equity between the researcher and participant or foster interview accessibility across diverse participant populations.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>When chosen with study goals in mind, elicitation techniques can enrich interview data. To harness this potential, we need to re-conceptualise interviews as co-production of knowledge by researcher(s) and participant(s). To make interviews more equitable and accessible, we need to consider flexibility so that each participant can engage in ways that best suit their needs and preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When words fail us: An integrative review of innovative elicitation techniques for qualitative interviews.\",\"authors\":\"Renate Kahlke, Lauren A Maggio, Mark C Lee, Sayra Cristancho, Kori LaDonna, Zahra Abdallah, Aakashdeep Khehra, Kushal Kshatri, Tanya Horsley, Lara Varpio\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.15555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interviews are central to many qualitative studies in health professions education (HPE). However, researchers often struggle to elicit rich data and engage diverse participants who may find this strategy exclusionary. Elicitation techniques are strategies tailored to address these challenges, enhancing oral conversations through other forms of interaction-for example, participant photography and neighbourhood walks. These strategies are tailored to elicit the rich data needed to address complex problems and meaningfully engage participants. Unfortunately, guidance on these techniques is scattered across literatures from diverse fields. In this synthesis, we offer an overview of the elicitation techniques available and advice about how to choose between them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an integrative review, drawing on methodological literature from across the health and social sciences. Our interdisciplinary searches yielded 3056 citations. We included 293 citations that were methodologically focused and discussed elicitation techniques used in interviews with adults. We then extracted specific elicitation techniques, summarising each technique to capture key features, as well as strengths and weaknesses. From this, we developed a framework to help researchers identify challenges in their interview-based research and to select elicitation techniques that address their challenges.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>To enrich data, researchers might seek to shift conversations away from participants' entrenched narratives, to externalise conversations on sensitive topics, or to elicit affect, tacit knowledge or contextual details. When empowering participants, researchers might seek to increase equity between the researcher and participant or foster interview accessibility across diverse participant populations.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>When chosen with study goals in mind, elicitation techniques can enrich interview data. To harness this potential, we need to re-conceptualise interviews as co-production of knowledge by researcher(s) and participant(s). To make interviews more equitable and accessible, we need to consider flexibility so that each participant can engage in ways that best suit their needs and preferences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15555\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15555","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:访谈是许多健康职业教育(HPE)定性研究的核心。然而,研究人员往往很难获得丰富的数据,也很难让不同的参与者参与进来,因为他们可能会认为这种策略具有排斥性。诱导技术是为应对这些挑战而量身定制的策略,通过其他形式的互动来加强口头对话--例如,参与者摄影和邻里散步。这些策略专门用于获取解决复杂问题所需的丰富数据,并让参与者切实参与其中。遗憾的是,有关这些技巧的指导散见于不同领域的文献中。在本综述中,我们概述了现有的诱导技术,并就如何选择这些技术提出了建议:方法:我们利用健康和社会科学领域的方法论文献进行了综合综述。通过跨学科检索,我们获得了 3056 篇引文。我们收录了 293 篇以方法论为重点、讨论成人访谈中使用的诱导技巧的文献。然后,我们提取了具体的诱导技术,总结了每种技术的主要特点以及优缺点。在此基础上,我们制定了一个框架,帮助研究人员识别访谈式研究中的挑战,并选择能够应对挑战的诱导技术:为了丰富数据,研究人员可能会设法将谈话从参与者根深蒂固的叙述中转移出来,将有关敏感话题的谈话外部化,或激发情感、隐性知识或背景细节。在增强参与者的能力时,研究人员可能会寻求提高研究人员与参与者之间的公平性,或促进访谈在不同参与者群体中的可及性:讨论:如果在选择时考虑到研究目标,诱导技术可以丰富访谈数据。要利用这一潜力,我们需要重新认识访谈,将其视为研究者和参与者共同创造知识的过程。为了使访谈更公平、更易获取,我们需要考虑灵活性,以便每位参与者都能以最适合自己需要和偏好的方式参与访谈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When words fail us: An integrative review of innovative elicitation techniques for qualitative interviews.

Introduction: Interviews are central to many qualitative studies in health professions education (HPE). However, researchers often struggle to elicit rich data and engage diverse participants who may find this strategy exclusionary. Elicitation techniques are strategies tailored to address these challenges, enhancing oral conversations through other forms of interaction-for example, participant photography and neighbourhood walks. These strategies are tailored to elicit the rich data needed to address complex problems and meaningfully engage participants. Unfortunately, guidance on these techniques is scattered across literatures from diverse fields. In this synthesis, we offer an overview of the elicitation techniques available and advice about how to choose between them.

Methods: We conducted an integrative review, drawing on methodological literature from across the health and social sciences. Our interdisciplinary searches yielded 3056 citations. We included 293 citations that were methodologically focused and discussed elicitation techniques used in interviews with adults. We then extracted specific elicitation techniques, summarising each technique to capture key features, as well as strengths and weaknesses. From this, we developed a framework to help researchers identify challenges in their interview-based research and to select elicitation techniques that address their challenges.

Results: To enrich data, researchers might seek to shift conversations away from participants' entrenched narratives, to externalise conversations on sensitive topics, or to elicit affect, tacit knowledge or contextual details. When empowering participants, researchers might seek to increase equity between the researcher and participant or foster interview accessibility across diverse participant populations.

Discussion: When chosen with study goals in mind, elicitation techniques can enrich interview data. To harness this potential, we need to re-conceptualise interviews as co-production of knowledge by researcher(s) and participant(s). To make interviews more equitable and accessible, we need to consider flexibility so that each participant can engage in ways that best suit their needs and preferences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
期刊最新文献
The need for critical and intersectional approaches to equity efforts in postgraduate medical education: A critical narrative review. Targeted competency and skill for targeted students. When I say … neurodiversity paradigm. The transition to clerkshIps bootcamp: Innovative and flexible curriculum strategies post COVID-19 adaptation. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1