Exploring the use of focused ethnography in social work research: A scoping review

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK
Patricia J Shannon, Laura Soltani, Erin Sugrue
{"title":"Exploring the use of focused ethnography in social work research: A scoping review","authors":"Patricia J Shannon, Laura Soltani, Erin Sugrue","doi":"10.1177/14733250231214199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Focused ethnography (FE) is an emerging method for social work researchers who examine social justice issues within specific sub-cultures and service systems. FE methods may include researchers with background knowledge, specific research questions, and the use of intensive, short-term data collection methods in time-limited settings. Although relevant to applied studies in social work, FE methods remain underspecified. This scoping review examines the extent, variety, and characteristics of FE in social work research. The protocol follows the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist and Explanation (PRISMA-ScR). We searched Social Science databases between 2018 and 2022. The critical appraisal of articles is guided by published FE methodology and American Psychological Association (APA) journal reporting standards for qualitative research. Researchers justified the use of FE in relation to their ethnographic goals, research populations, and specific questions. However, they were inconsistent in their discussion of the integration of theory and reflexive processes in research methods. While most studies used thematic analysis or coding of qualitative data, some lacked the recommended elements outlined in the journal reporting standards for qualitative research. In particular, they lacked transparency when discussing the impact of background knowledge and positionality on data analytic processes and findings. In this review, we discuss the strengths and limitations of FE for social work research and offer recommendations for methodological improvement. To enhance understanding and trustworthiness of reported findings, we recommend transparency in discussions of data analytic and reflexive processes, as well as uniform reporting in accordance with APA standards for qualitative research.","PeriodicalId":47677,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Social Work","volume":"31 21","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250231214199","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Focused ethnography (FE) is an emerging method for social work researchers who examine social justice issues within specific sub-cultures and service systems. FE methods may include researchers with background knowledge, specific research questions, and the use of intensive, short-term data collection methods in time-limited settings. Although relevant to applied studies in social work, FE methods remain underspecified. This scoping review examines the extent, variety, and characteristics of FE in social work research. The protocol follows the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist and Explanation (PRISMA-ScR). We searched Social Science databases between 2018 and 2022. The critical appraisal of articles is guided by published FE methodology and American Psychological Association (APA) journal reporting standards for qualitative research. Researchers justified the use of FE in relation to their ethnographic goals, research populations, and specific questions. However, they were inconsistent in their discussion of the integration of theory and reflexive processes in research methods. While most studies used thematic analysis or coding of qualitative data, some lacked the recommended elements outlined in the journal reporting standards for qualitative research. In particular, they lacked transparency when discussing the impact of background knowledge and positionality on data analytic processes and findings. In this review, we discuss the strengths and limitations of FE for social work research and offer recommendations for methodological improvement. To enhance understanding and trustworthiness of reported findings, we recommend transparency in discussions of data analytic and reflexive processes, as well as uniform reporting in accordance with APA standards for qualitative research.
探索聚焦人种学在社会工作研究中的应用:范围审查
焦点人种学(FE)是一种新兴的方法,用于社会工作研究人员在特定的亚文化和服务系统中研究社会正义问题。有限元方法可能包括具有背景知识的研究人员,具体的研究问题,以及在有限的时间内使用密集的短期数据收集方法。虽然与社会工作的应用研究相关,但FE方法仍然不明确。这个范围审查检查的范围,种类和社会工作研究FE的特点。该方案遵循PRISMA范围审查扩展清单和解释(PRISMA- scr)。我们检索了2018年至2022年的社会科学数据库。文章的批判性评价是由发表的FE方法和美国心理协会(APA)期刊报告标准的定性研究指导。研究人员根据他们的民族志目标、研究人群和具体问题证明了FE的使用是合理的。然而,他们在研究方法上对理论与反身过程的整合的讨论并不一致。虽然大多数研究使用专题分析或定性数据编码,但有些研究缺乏定性研究期刊报告标准中概述的建议要素。特别是,在讨论背景知识和立场对数据分析过程和结果的影响时,它们缺乏透明度。在这篇综述中,我们讨论了社会工作研究的优势和局限性,并提出了方法改进的建议。为了加强对报告结果的理解和可信度,我们建议在数据分析和反思过程的讨论中保持透明度,并按照APA的定性研究标准统一报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: Qualitative Social Work provides a forum for those interested in qualitative research and evaluation and in qualitative approaches to practice. The journal facilitates interactive dialogue and integration between those interested in qualitative research and methodology and those involved in the world of practice. It reflects the fact that these worlds are increasingly international and interdisciplinary in nature. The journal is a forum for rigorous dialogue that promotes qualitatively informed professional practice and inquiry.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信