Using theory and reflexivity to preserve methodological rigour of data collection in qualitative research

K. Jamie, A. Rathbone
{"title":"Using theory and reflexivity to preserve methodological rigour of data collection in qualitative research","authors":"K. Jamie, A. Rathbone","doi":"10.1177/26320843211061302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the place of theory in qualitative medical research. While theory’s place in research planning and data analysis has been well-established, the contribution of theory during qualitative data collection tends to be overlooked. Yet, data collection is not an asocial or apolitical process and requires reflection and analysis in and of itself. Therefore, drawing on an exemplar case study research project which focused on patients’ use of medicines, the paper argues that engaging with theory to think reflexively, throughout a project but particularly during the process of data collection can ensure the rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative data. In this case study, we draw on sociologist Erving Goffman’s theoretical framework of the dramaturgical metaphor to address the multiplicity of roles that healthcare practitioners undertaking qualitative research have to occupy and navigate. Rather than painting researchers out of their research through a naïve search for ‘objectivity’, reflexivity that is scaffolded by theory, offers a way through which researchers’ biases and subjectivities can be made explicit and their data analysis transparent. In making this argument, we encourage medical researchers to engage with, and be attuned to, theoretical perspectives outwith their own discipline.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"3 1","pages":"11 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843211061302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper examines the place of theory in qualitative medical research. While theory’s place in research planning and data analysis has been well-established, the contribution of theory during qualitative data collection tends to be overlooked. Yet, data collection is not an asocial or apolitical process and requires reflection and analysis in and of itself. Therefore, drawing on an exemplar case study research project which focused on patients’ use of medicines, the paper argues that engaging with theory to think reflexively, throughout a project but particularly during the process of data collection can ensure the rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative data. In this case study, we draw on sociologist Erving Goffman’s theoretical framework of the dramaturgical metaphor to address the multiplicity of roles that healthcare practitioners undertaking qualitative research have to occupy and navigate. Rather than painting researchers out of their research through a naïve search for ‘objectivity’, reflexivity that is scaffolded by theory, offers a way through which researchers’ biases and subjectivities can be made explicit and their data analysis transparent. In making this argument, we encourage medical researchers to engage with, and be attuned to, theoretical perspectives outwith their own discipline.
利用理论和自反性来保持定性研究中数据收集的方法严谨性
本文探讨了理论在定性医学研究中的地位。虽然理论在研究规划和数据分析中的地位已经确立,但理论在定性数据收集中的贡献往往被忽视。然而,数据收集并不是一个非社会性或非政治性的过程,它本身就需要反思和分析。因此,本文借鉴了一个以患者用药为重点的案例研究项目,认为在整个项目中,尤其是在数据收集过程中,运用理论进行反思,可以确保定性数据的严格性和可信度。在本案例研究中,我们借鉴了社会学家Erving Goffman的戏剧隐喻理论框架,以解决从事定性研究的医疗从业者必须扮演和驾驭的多重角色。理论所支撑的自反性并没有通过天真地寻找“客观性”来将研究人员从研究中抹去,而是提供了一种方法,通过这种方法,研究人员的偏见和主观主义可以被明确化,他们的数据分析也可以透明化。在提出这一论点时,我们鼓励医学研究人员参与并适应他们自己学科之外的理论观点。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信