质性研究的参与者选择程序:经验与考虑要点。

Frontiers in research metrics and analytics Pub Date : 2024-12-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frma.2024.1512747
Niroj Dahal, Bharat Prasad Neupane, Binod Prasad Pant, Rebat Kumar Dhakal, Dhudi Raj Giri, Puna Ram Ghimire, Laxman Prasad Bhandari
{"title":"质性研究的参与者选择程序:经验与考虑要点。","authors":"Niroj Dahal, Bharat Prasad Neupane, Binod Prasad Pant, Rebat Kumar Dhakal, Dhudi Raj Giri, Puna Ram Ghimire, Laxman Prasad Bhandari","doi":"10.3389/frma.2024.1512747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Qualitative research is widely embraced in the social sciences and education. Among the different traditional, modern, and community-oriented qualitative methodologies, we have drawn on our experiences to adopt seven qualitative methodologies: auto/ethnography, narrative inquiry, participatory action research, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and phenomenology. Despite the abundance of literature on qualitative methodologies, there is still a need for a more focused exploration of participant selection procedures in qualitative studies. This article examines the discourse around participant selection procedures within these seven methodologies, highlighting their unique nuances and differences. It offers practical insights and guidelines for novice and experienced researchers and graduate and postgraduate students to enhance their understanding of participant selection procedures, and some thinking points for consideration. Drawing from our experiences, we aim to provide a useful resource that encourages thoughtful consideration of participant selection in qualitative studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":73104,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics","volume":"9 ","pages":"1512747"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697429/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participant selection procedures in qualitative research: experiences and some points for consideration.\",\"authors\":\"Niroj Dahal, Bharat Prasad Neupane, Binod Prasad Pant, Rebat Kumar Dhakal, Dhudi Raj Giri, Puna Ram Ghimire, Laxman Prasad Bhandari\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frma.2024.1512747\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Qualitative research is widely embraced in the social sciences and education. Among the different traditional, modern, and community-oriented qualitative methodologies, we have drawn on our experiences to adopt seven qualitative methodologies: auto/ethnography, narrative inquiry, participatory action research, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and phenomenology. Despite the abundance of literature on qualitative methodologies, there is still a need for a more focused exploration of participant selection procedures in qualitative studies. This article examines the discourse around participant selection procedures within these seven methodologies, highlighting their unique nuances and differences. It offers practical insights and guidelines for novice and experienced researchers and graduate and postgraduate students to enhance their understanding of participant selection procedures, and some thinking points for consideration. Drawing from our experiences, we aim to provide a useful resource that encourages thoughtful consideration of participant selection in qualitative studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"1512747\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697429/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1512747\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1512747","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

质性研究在社会科学和教育领域被广泛接受。在不同的传统、现代和面向社区的定性方法中,我们借鉴了我们的经验,采用了七种定性方法:自动/民族志、叙事探究、参与行动研究、民族志、案例研究、扎根理论和现象学。尽管有大量关于定性方法的文献,但仍需要对定性研究中的参与者选择程序进行更集中的探索。本文考察了这七种方法中围绕参与者选择程序的论述,突出了它们独特的细微差别和差异。它为研究新手和有经验的研究人员以及研究生和研究生提供了实用的见解和指导,以增强他们对参与者选择程序的理解,并提供了一些可供考虑的思考点。根据我们的经验,我们的目标是提供一个有用的资源,鼓励在定性研究中深思熟虑地考虑参与者的选择。
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
Participant selection procedures in qualitative research: experiences and some points for consideration.

Qualitative research is widely embraced in the social sciences and education. Among the different traditional, modern, and community-oriented qualitative methodologies, we have drawn on our experiences to adopt seven qualitative methodologies: auto/ethnography, narrative inquiry, participatory action research, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and phenomenology. Despite the abundance of literature on qualitative methodologies, there is still a need for a more focused exploration of participant selection procedures in qualitative studies. This article examines the discourse around participant selection procedures within these seven methodologies, highlighting their unique nuances and differences. It offers practical insights and guidelines for novice and experienced researchers and graduate and postgraduate students to enhance their understanding of participant selection procedures, and some thinking points for consideration. Drawing from our experiences, we aim to provide a useful resource that encourages thoughtful consideration of participant selection in qualitative studies.

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review. Economic value of HPC experience for new STEM professionals: Insights from STEM hiring managers. The ethics of artificial intelligence use in university libraries in Zimbabwe. Patent research in academic literature. Landscape and trends with a focus on patent analytics. A role for qualitative methods in researching Twitter data on a popular science article's communication.
×
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