应用Guba和Lincoln的平行标准评估土著社会保护系统定性研究的可信度

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
O. Enworo
{"title":"应用Guba和Lincoln的平行标准评估土著社会保护系统定性研究的可信度","authors":"O. Enworo","doi":"10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper illustrates how Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for establishing trustworthiness, can be adapted and applied to qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. It provides insights for social protection researchers, exploring plausible qualitative research rigor evaluation criteria, on plausible alternatives.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on qualitative evidence from a larger ethnographic study on the dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria. It illustrates the systematic application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria.FindingsAvailable evidence from the study shows that Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria is viable for establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. The criteria can facilitate credible and reliable research outcomes in research on improving social protection policy and practice.Research limitations/implicationsQualitative inquiries that draw on Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria as evaluation criteria for trustworthiness can complement quantitative research on social protection. This makes it imperative to incorporate both, in social protection research for a holistic system. How this can be done is beyond the scope of this paper but needs to be explored by future research.Originality/valueContrary to the use of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria in qualitative research in other contexts, the use of the criteria has not been carefully examined in qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.","PeriodicalId":47040,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria to assess trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems\",\"authors\":\"O. Enworo\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis paper illustrates how Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for establishing trustworthiness, can be adapted and applied to qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. It provides insights for social protection researchers, exploring plausible qualitative research rigor evaluation criteria, on plausible alternatives.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on qualitative evidence from a larger ethnographic study on the dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria. It illustrates the systematic application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria.FindingsAvailable evidence from the study shows that Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria is viable for establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. The criteria can facilitate credible and reliable research outcomes in research on improving social protection policy and practice.Research limitations/implicationsQualitative inquiries that draw on Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria as evaluation criteria for trustworthiness can complement quantitative research on social protection. This makes it imperative to incorporate both, in social protection research for a holistic system. How this can be done is beyond the scope of this paper but needs to be explored by future research.Originality/valueContrary to the use of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria in qualitative research in other contexts, the use of the criteria has not been carefully examined in qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47040,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文阐述了如何将古巴和林肯建立可信度的平行标准适用于土著社会保护制度的定性研究。它为社会保护研究人员提供了见解,探索可信的定性研究严格的评估标准,对可信的替代方案。设计/方法/方法本文借鉴了一项关于尼日利亚土著社会保护系统动态的更大的民族志研究的定性证据。它说明了古巴和林肯的平行标准的系统应用。研究结果表明,Guba和Lincoln的平行标准对于建立土著社会保护制度定性研究的可信度是可行的。这些标准有助于在改进社会保护政策和实践的研究中取得可信和可靠的研究成果。研究局限/启示借鉴古巴和林肯的平行标准作为可信度评价标准的定性调查可以补充社会保护的定量研究。因此,必须将两者纳入社会保护研究的整体体系中。如何做到这一点超出了本文的范围,需要通过未来的研究来探索。原创性/价值与在定性研究中使用Guba和Lincoln的平行标准相反,在对土著社会保护制度的定性研究中,这些标准的使用并没有得到仔细的检验。本文试图填补这一空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria to assess trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems
PurposeThis paper illustrates how Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for establishing trustworthiness, can be adapted and applied to qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. It provides insights for social protection researchers, exploring plausible qualitative research rigor evaluation criteria, on plausible alternatives.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on qualitative evidence from a larger ethnographic study on the dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria. It illustrates the systematic application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria.FindingsAvailable evidence from the study shows that Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria is viable for establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. The criteria can facilitate credible and reliable research outcomes in research on improving social protection policy and practice.Research limitations/implicationsQualitative inquiries that draw on Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria as evaluation criteria for trustworthiness can complement quantitative research on social protection. This makes it imperative to incorporate both, in social protection research for a holistic system. How this can be done is beyond the scope of this paper but needs to be explored by future research.Originality/valueContrary to the use of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria in qualitative research in other contexts, the use of the criteria has not been carefully examined in qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.
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 Research Journal
Qualitative Research Journal SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) is an international journal devoted to the communication of the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. It is interdisciplinary and eclectic, covering all methodologies that can be described as qualitative. It offers an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices. QRJ deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual 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