样本选择很重要:迈向实证稳健的定性研究

IF 6.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Sociological Methods & Research Pub Date : 2022-12-04 DOI:10.1177/00491241221140425
Stefanie DeLuca
{"title":"样本选择很重要:迈向实证稳健的定性研究","authors":"Stefanie DeLuca","doi":"10.1177/00491241221140425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasingly, the broader public, media and policymakers are looking to qualitative research to provide answers to our most pressing social questions. While an exciting and perhaps overdue moment for qualitative researchers, it is also a time when the method is coming under increasing scrutiny for a lack of reliability and transparency. The question of how to assess the quality of qualitative research is therefore paramount, but the field still lacks clear standards to evaluate qualitative work. In their new book, Qualitative Literacy, Mario Luis Small and Jessica McCrory Calarco aim to fill this gap. I argue that Qualitative Literacy offers a compelling set of standards for consumers to assess whether an in-depth interview or participant observation was of sufficient quality and, to an extent, whether sufficient time was spent in the field. However, by ignoring the vital importance of employing systematic, well-justified, and transparent sampling strategies, the implication is that such essential criteria can be ignored, undermining the potential contribution of qualitative research to a more cumulative creation of scientific knowledge.","PeriodicalId":21849,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methods & Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"1073 - 1085"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sample Selection Matters: Moving Toward Empirically Sound Qualitative Research\",\"authors\":\"Stefanie DeLuca\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00491241221140425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Increasingly, the broader public, media and policymakers are looking to qualitative research to provide answers to our most pressing social questions. While an exciting and perhaps overdue moment for qualitative researchers, it is also a time when the method is coming under increasing scrutiny for a lack of reliability and transparency. The question of how to assess the quality of qualitative research is therefore paramount, but the field still lacks clear standards to evaluate qualitative work. In their new book, Qualitative Literacy, Mario Luis Small and Jessica McCrory Calarco aim to fill this gap. I argue that Qualitative Literacy offers a compelling set of standards for consumers to assess whether an in-depth interview or participant observation was of sufficient quality and, to an extent, whether sufficient time was spent in the field. However, by ignoring the vital importance of employing systematic, well-justified, and transparent sampling strategies, the implication is that such essential criteria can be ignored, undermining the potential contribution of qualitative research to a more cumulative creation of scientific knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"1073 - 1085\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221140425\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methods & Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221140425","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的公众、媒体和政策制定者希望进行定性研究,为我们最紧迫的社会问题提供答案。虽然对定性研究人员来说,这是一个激动人心的时刻,也许是一个早该到来的时刻,但由于缺乏可靠性和透明度,该方法也受到了越来越多的审查。因此,如何评估定性研究的质量问题至关重要,但该领域仍然缺乏评估定性工作的明确标准。马里奥·路易斯·斯莫尔和杰西卡·麦克罗里·卡拉科在他们的新书《定性识字》中旨在填补这一空白。我认为,定性素养为消费者提供了一套令人信服的标准,以评估深入采访或参与者观察是否具有足够的质量,以及在某种程度上是否在该领域花费了足够的时间。然而,由于忽视了采用系统、合理和透明的抽样策略的至关重要性,这意味着这些基本标准可以被忽视,从而削弱了定性研究对更累积地创造科学知识的潜在贡献。
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
Sample Selection Matters: Moving Toward Empirically Sound Qualitative Research
Increasingly, the broader public, media and policymakers are looking to qualitative research to provide answers to our most pressing social questions. While an exciting and perhaps overdue moment for qualitative researchers, it is also a time when the method is coming under increasing scrutiny for a lack of reliability and transparency. The question of how to assess the quality of qualitative research is therefore paramount, but the field still lacks clear standards to evaluate qualitative work. In their new book, Qualitative Literacy, Mario Luis Small and Jessica McCrory Calarco aim to fill this gap. I argue that Qualitative Literacy offers a compelling set of standards for consumers to assess whether an in-depth interview or participant observation was of sufficient quality and, to an extent, whether sufficient time was spent in the field. However, by ignoring the vital importance of employing systematic, well-justified, and transparent sampling strategies, the implication is that such essential criteria can be ignored, undermining the potential contribution of qualitative research to a more cumulative creation of scientific knowledge.
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
16.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Sociological Methods & Research is a quarterly journal devoted to sociology as a cumulative empirical science. The objectives of SMR are multiple, but emphasis is placed on articles that advance the understanding of the field through systematic presentations that clarify methodological problems and assist in ordering the known facts in an area. Review articles will be published, particularly those that emphasize a critical analysis of the status of the arts, but original presentations that are broadly based and provide new research will also be published. Intrinsically, SMR is viewed as substantive journal but one that is highly focused on the assessment of the scientific status of sociology. The scope is broad and flexible, and authors are invited to correspond with the editors about the appropriateness of their articles.
期刊最新文献
Sharing Big Video Data: Ethics, Methods, and Technology Dynamics of Health Expectancy: An Introduction to the Multiple Multistate Method (MMM) Seeded Topic Models in Digital Archives: Analyzing Interpretations of Immigration in Swedish Newspapers, 1945–2019 A Primer on Deep Learning for Causal Inference Untapped Potential: Designed Digital Trace Data in Online Survey Experiments
×
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