修补二对一访谈:关于在定性建构主义调查中使用两位访谈者的思考

Q2 Psychology
Javier Monforte , Joan Úbeda-Colomer
{"title":"修补二对一访谈:关于在定性建构主义调查中使用两位访谈者的思考","authors":"Javier Monforte ,&nbsp;Joan Úbeda-Colomer","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2021.100082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Typically, qualitative interviews implicate a single interviewer. In this article, we consider an alternative comprising the simultaneous, active involvement of two interviewers. We base our considerations on experiences using the two-to-one interview in a nationwide research project on disability and physical activity. In addition to untapping and developing a qualitative interview method, the article provides an example in action of tinkering in qualitative inquiry. Tinkering entails a constant questioning of what to do, what is best, and what is appropriate within each moment of the research. Echoing social constructionist scholars, we argue that this flexible approach is useful to move away from methodological prescription and predictability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100082"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260121000394/pdfft?md5=64db86834ea147a51de79ad6cc965c0f&pid=1-s2.0-S2590260121000394-main.pdf","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tinkering with the two-to-one interview: Reflections on the use of two interviewers in qualitative constructionist inquiry\",\"authors\":\"Javier Monforte ,&nbsp;Joan Úbeda-Colomer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.metip.2021.100082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Typically, qualitative interviews implicate a single interviewer. In this article, we consider an alternative comprising the simultaneous, active involvement of two interviewers. We base our considerations on experiences using the two-to-one interview in a nationwide research project on disability and physical activity. In addition to untapping and developing a qualitative interview method, the article provides an example in action of tinkering in qualitative inquiry. Tinkering entails a constant questioning of what to do, what is best, and what is appropriate within each moment of the research. Echoing social constructionist scholars, we argue that this flexible approach is useful to move away from methodological prescription and predictability.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Methods in Psychology (Online)\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100082\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260121000394/pdfft?md5=64db86834ea147a51de79ad6cc965c0f&pid=1-s2.0-S2590260121000394-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Methods in Psychology (Online)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260121000394\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260121000394","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

一般来说,定性面试只有一个面试官。在这篇文章中,我们考虑一个替代方案,包括两个面试官同时积极参与。我们的考虑是基于在一个关于残疾和体育活动的全国性研究项目中使用二比一访谈的经验。除了挖掘和发展定性访谈方法外,本文还提供了一个在定性调查中进行修修补补的例子。修修补补需要在研究的每一个时刻不断追问该做什么,什么是最好的,什么是合适的。与社会建构主义学者的观点相呼应,我们认为这种灵活的方法有助于摆脱方法论上的规定和可预测性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tinkering with the two-to-one interview: Reflections on the use of two interviewers in qualitative constructionist inquiry

Typically, qualitative interviews implicate a single interviewer. In this article, we consider an alternative comprising the simultaneous, active involvement of two interviewers. We base our considerations on experiences using the two-to-one interview in a nationwide research project on disability and physical activity. In addition to untapping and developing a qualitative interview method, the article provides an example in action of tinkering in qualitative inquiry. Tinkering entails a constant questioning of what to do, what is best, and what is appropriate within each moment of the research. Echoing social constructionist scholars, we argue that this flexible approach is useful to move away from methodological prescription and predictability.

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
Methods in Psychology (Online)
Methods in Psychology (Online) Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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