社会变革研究中记录的定性专题分析:对常见误解的思考和报告结果的建议

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Lauren Kogen
{"title":"社会变革研究中记录的定性专题分析:对常见误解的思考和报告结果的建议","authors":"Lauren Kogen","doi":"10.1177/16094069231225919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper, on qualitative thematic analysis (QTA) in social change research, falls somewhere between a reflective piece and a how-to guide. Using two examples from my own previous research, I discuss why QTA in the field of social change or social justice, which often analyzes the words of vulnerable, marginalized, or underserved populations, is so fraught, so contested, and so often dismissed. Qualitative thematic analysis of interviews or focus groups is a common research tool used in the field, but the guidelines, scope, and practices of this tool are varied and ill-defined. I have witnessed in my students’ papers and in peer reviewing for journals that there are a handful of assumptions and misconceptions that appear repeatedly, for example around intercoder reliability and frequency counting, that reduce the quality of analysis. This paper focuses on how to conduct QTAs that address social change: complex social problems faced by underserved populations, such as those dealing with poverty and inequality. By discussing the methods used in two of my own social change research projects, this paper offers a balanced method for both promoting rigor and understanding the limits and strengths of this method.","PeriodicalId":48220,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Transcripts in Social Change Research: Reflections on Common Misconceptions and Recommendations for Reporting Results\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Kogen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16094069231225919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper, on qualitative thematic analysis (QTA) in social change research, falls somewhere between a reflective piece and a how-to guide. Using two examples from my own previous research, I discuss why QTA in the field of social change or social justice, which often analyzes the words of vulnerable, marginalized, or underserved populations, is so fraught, so contested, and so often dismissed. Qualitative thematic analysis of interviews or focus groups is a common research tool used in the field, but the guidelines, scope, and practices of this tool are varied and ill-defined. I have witnessed in my students’ papers and in peer reviewing for journals that there are a handful of assumptions and misconceptions that appear repeatedly, for example around intercoder reliability and frequency counting, that reduce the quality of analysis. This paper focuses on how to conduct QTAs that address social change: complex social problems faced by underserved populations, such as those dealing with poverty and inequality. By discussing the methods used in two of my own social change research projects, this paper offers a balanced method for both promoting rigor and understanding the limits and strengths of this method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Qualitative Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Qualitative Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231225919\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231225919","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇关于社会变革研究中的定性专题分析(QTA)的论文介于反思文章和操作指南之间。我用自己以前研究中的两个例子,讨论了为什么社会变革或社会正义领域中的定性主题分析(通常分析弱势群体、边缘化群体或得不到充分服务的群体的言论)如此充满争议,而且经常被忽视。对访谈或焦点小组进行定性专题分析是这一领域常用的研究工具,但这一工具的指导方针、范围和做法多种多样,定义不清。我在学生的论文和期刊同行评审中看到,有一些假设和误解反复出现,例如围绕编码器间可靠性和频率计数,降低了分析的质量。本文将重点讨论如何开展针对社会变革的 QTA:服务不足人群所面临的复杂社会问题,如贫困和不平等问题。通过讨论我自己的两个社会变革研究项目中使用的方法,本文提供了一种既能促进严谨性又能理解这种方法的局限性和优势的平衡方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Transcripts in Social Change Research: Reflections on Common Misconceptions and Recommendations for Reporting Results
This paper, on qualitative thematic analysis (QTA) in social change research, falls somewhere between a reflective piece and a how-to guide. Using two examples from my own previous research, I discuss why QTA in the field of social change or social justice, which often analyzes the words of vulnerable, marginalized, or underserved populations, is so fraught, so contested, and so often dismissed. Qualitative thematic analysis of interviews or focus groups is a common research tool used in the field, but the guidelines, scope, and practices of this tool are varied and ill-defined. I have witnessed in my students’ papers and in peer reviewing for journals that there are a handful of assumptions and misconceptions that appear repeatedly, for example around intercoder reliability and frequency counting, that reduce the quality of analysis. This paper focuses on how to conduct QTAs that address social change: complex social problems faced by underserved populations, such as those dealing with poverty and inequality. By discussing the methods used in two of my own social change research projects, this paper offers a balanced method for both promoting rigor and understanding the limits and strengths of this method.
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
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
International Journal of Qualitative Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal Highlights Impact Factor: 5.4 Ranked 5/110 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary – SSCI Indexed In: Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Scopus Launched In: 2002 Publication is subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) Submit here International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) is a peer-reviewed open access journal which focuses on methodological advances, innovations, and insights in qualitative or mixed methods studies. Please see the Aims and Scope tab for further information.
×
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