质疑焦点小组方法论的范式承诺:对上下文敏感的定性研究方法的邀请。

IF 8.5 Q2 Psychology Qualitative Psychology Pub Date : 2022-02-17 DOI:10.1037/qup0000227
Apurv Chauhan, Surbhi Sehgal
{"title":"质疑焦点小组方法论的范式承诺:对上下文敏感的定性研究方法的邀请。","authors":"Apurv Chauhan, Surbhi Sehgal","doi":"10.1037/qup0000227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Paradigmatic methodological guidelines predominantly reflect communicative norms of societies where the methods were developed and formalized. Using the example of Focus Group Discussions, we highlight the dangers of indiscriminately following paradigmatic guidelines when using qualitative methods in varied socio-cultural settings. We argue that their universal implementation can lead to ethnocentric biases in qualitative research practices. In this paper, we discuss four specific issues related to: (i) the significance of existing relationships between participants and the presence of onlookers during research, (ii) a priori determination of the level of privacy required by participants, (iii) considering atomistic individuals as creators of qualitative data, and (iv) overlooking the social practice aspect of research. The paper also presents our theorization of a tripartite conceptualization of research context that can facilitate a considered use of paradigmatic norms and guidelines. The paper concludes with our reflections on how qualitative research can achieve greater symmetry between its methods and the varied socio-cultural contexts where they are used.","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interrogating paradigmatic commitments of focus group methodology: An invitation to context-sensitive qualitative research methods.\",\"authors\":\"Apurv Chauhan, Surbhi Sehgal\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/qup0000227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Paradigmatic methodological guidelines predominantly reflect communicative norms of societies where the methods were developed and formalized. Using the example of Focus Group Discussions, we highlight the dangers of indiscriminately following paradigmatic guidelines when using qualitative methods in varied socio-cultural settings. We argue that their universal implementation can lead to ethnocentric biases in qualitative research practices. In this paper, we discuss four specific issues related to: (i) the significance of existing relationships between participants and the presence of onlookers during research, (ii) a priori determination of the level of privacy required by participants, (iii) considering atomistic individuals as creators of qualitative data, and (iv) overlooking the social practice aspect of research. The paper also presents our theorization of a tripartite conceptualization of research context that can facilitate a considered use of paradigmatic norms and guidelines. The paper concludes with our reflections on how qualitative research can achieve greater symmetry between its methods and the varied socio-cultural contexts where they are used.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Psychology\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

范式方法学指导方针主要反映了方法发展和形式化的社会的交流规范。以焦点小组讨论为例,我们强调了在不同的社会文化环境中使用定性方法时不加选择地遵循范式指导方针的危险。我们认为,它们的普遍实施可能导致定性研究实践中的种族中心主义偏见。在本文中,我们讨论了四个具体问题,涉及:(i)在研究过程中参与者与旁观者之间现有关系的重要性,(ii)先验地确定参与者所需的隐私水平,(iii)将原子个体视为定性数据的创造者,以及(iv)忽视研究的社会实践方面。本文还提出了我们对研究背景的三方概念化的理论化,可以促进范式规范和指导方针的考虑使用。本文总结了我们对定性研究如何在其方法和使用它们的不同社会文化背景之间实现更大对称性的思考。
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
Interrogating paradigmatic commitments of focus group methodology: An invitation to context-sensitive qualitative research methods.
Paradigmatic methodological guidelines predominantly reflect communicative norms of societies where the methods were developed and formalized. Using the example of Focus Group Discussions, we highlight the dangers of indiscriminately following paradigmatic guidelines when using qualitative methods in varied socio-cultural settings. We argue that their universal implementation can lead to ethnocentric biases in qualitative research practices. In this paper, we discuss four specific issues related to: (i) the significance of existing relationships between participants and the presence of onlookers during research, (ii) a priori determination of the level of privacy required by participants, (iii) considering atomistic individuals as creators of qualitative data, and (iv) overlooking the social practice aspect of research. The paper also presents our theorization of a tripartite conceptualization of research context that can facilitate a considered use of paradigmatic norms and guidelines. The paper concludes with our reflections on how qualitative research can achieve greater symmetry between its methods and the varied socio-cultural contexts where they are used.
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
Qualitative Psychology
Qualitative Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The mission of Qualitative Psychology journal is to foster innovative methods, theories, and empirical research in qualitative inquiry within psychology. The journal aims to highlight the unique contributions of qualitative research in advancing psychological knowledge. Published studies not only explore substantive topics but also address issues related to epistemology, the philosophy of science, and methodological criteria that impact the formulation, execution, and interpretation of qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology promotes a diverse range of methodological approaches, including narrative, discourse analysis, life history, phenomenology, ethnography, action research, and case study. Additionally, the journal puts emphasis on discussing the teaching and training of qualitative research methods to develop competent qualitative researchers.
期刊最新文献
Black girls don’t cry? Mental health, gender, and violence on the racialized periphery. The gendered racial and sexual socialization experiences of young Black women: A qualitative study. Teaching field social psychology: An action orientation to pedagogy of methods and methodologies. Reflecting back and imagining forward: Qualitative inquiry in psychology at the dawn of a new era. Actualizing transformative promises of qualitative inquiry: Early career retrospective.
×
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