Grounding Qualitative Medical Research in Coherence, Not Standards

被引:0
|
作者
Isaac, Carol [1 ]
Behar-Horenstein, Linda [2 ]
机构
[1] Mercer Univ, Atlanta, GA 30341 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Gainesville, FL USA
来源
QUALITATIVE REPORT | 2023年 / 28卷 / 03期
关键词
methodological coherence; qualitative methods; epistemology; medical writing; HEALTH-CARE; STUDENTS; PURPOSES;
D O I
10.46743/2160-3715/2023.5698
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Qualitative research publications have become more prominent in medical journals. However, in medical discourse, those researchers who are adhere to postpositivist (quantitative) paradigm often criticize diverse qualitative inquiry for a perceived lack of rigor. We suggest that qualitative research, just like quantitative research should be guided by methodological coherence rather than prescriptive standards. Coherence is defined as an alignment between epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology, methods, and research questions. In the medical field, a lack of training in methodological diversity, a long-held post-positivist privileging, and insufficient methodological dialogue, promulgates reliance on quantitative analyses. Neglecting to articulate sufficient methodological detail has caused other researchers to assert that qualitative research lacks rigor. Providing methodological details permits study replication. Qualitative researchers have been discussing the necessity for this scholastic imperative for decades, although it is relatively new in medical discourse. The authors' interest in this topic stems from an analysis of rigor within qualitative medical educational articles since 2012 (CI), and reviewing grant proposals, doctoral research studies, and publishing in medical journals (LBH, CI). During out work, we observed that while the literature reviews in these submissions are frequently excellent, the method and results sections often lacked the essential linkages that are needed to support methodological coherence. Owing to our interest, we undertook a critical review while using deductive content analysis of forty qualitative articles in a top-tier medical journal. The purpose of this paper is to provide examples of coherence with the qualitative medical article reviewed. Our aim is to provide scholarly guidance to novice medical researchers and practitioners. The authors believe that this information will support increased scholarly integrity and coherence in the qualitative research publications, specifically in medical education and more generally in other discipline-related qualitative studies. We believe that both researchers and readers of qualitative research in academic medicine need to know about these issues so they can capably provide evidence of coherence.
引用
收藏
页码:717 / 734
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?
    C. L. Poortman
    K. Schildkamp
    Quality & Quantity, 2012, 46 : 1727 - 1751
  • [2] Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?
    Poortman, C. L.
    Schildkamp, K.
    QUALITY & QUANTITY, 2012, 46 (06) : 1727 - 1751
  • [3] Quality Standards for Qualitative Evaluation Research
    Mayring, Philipp
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVALUATION, 2018, 17 (01): : 11 - 24
  • [4] Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines
    Malterud, K
    LANCET, 2001, 358 (9280): : 483 - 488
  • [6] Qualitative research in medical practice
    Ryan, K
    NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 109 (1018) : 87 - 88
  • [7] Qualitative research in medical education
    Wilson, Ian
    MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2010, 44 (09) : 942 - 942
  • [8] Facilitating Coherence across Qualitative Research Papers
    Chenail, Ronald J.
    Duffy, Maureen
    George, Sally St.
    Wulff, Dan
    QUALITATIVE REPORT, 2011, 16 (01) : 263 - 275
  • [9] Facilitating Coherence across Qualitative Research Papers
    Chenail, Ronald J.
    Duffy, Maureen
    St George, Sally
    Wulff, Dan
    QUALITATIVE REPORT, 2008, 13 (04) : 32 - 44
  • [10] Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
    O'Brien, Bridget C.
    Harris, Ilene B.
    Beckman, Thomas J.
    Reed, Darcy A.
    Cook, David A.
    ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2014, 89 (09) : 1245 - 1251