社会干预和公共政策项目的定性应用研究:焦点小组访谈的案例

IF 0.3 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
Sociologija Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.2298/soc2001042i
S. Ignjatovic
{"title":"社会干预和公共政策项目的定性应用研究:焦点小组访谈的案例","authors":"S. Ignjatovic","doi":"10.2298/soc2001042i","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Quantitative research is still dominant in public policy, but qualitative methods are being increasingly used as sources of primary data. In addition to their main practical purpose, qualitative applied policy research studies are used to legitimize public policy programs, social interventions, and initiatives. Compared to quantitative research, qualitative methods provide insight into the contextual and complex situational factors, which may be highly relevant for successful social interventions. Focus group interviews are commonly used in social interventions for data collection. Focus group interviews may contribute to a better articulation of implicit opinions and preferences, and enable triangulation based on multiple perspectives and information (beneficiaries, stakeholders). We argue that focus groups in public policy research and social interventions are based on the same methodological principles as focus groups in basic research, including sampling, facilitation, and ethical issues. Some modifications are necessary due to the main purpose of focus groups (the intervention), situational factors, and logistic fieldwork issues.","PeriodicalId":43515,"journal":{"name":"Sociologija","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative applied research in social interventions and public policy programs: The case of focus group interviews\",\"authors\":\"S. Ignjatovic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/soc2001042i\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Quantitative research is still dominant in public policy, but qualitative methods are being increasingly used as sources of primary data. In addition to their main practical purpose, qualitative applied policy research studies are used to legitimize public policy programs, social interventions, and initiatives. Compared to quantitative research, qualitative methods provide insight into the contextual and complex situational factors, which may be highly relevant for successful social interventions. Focus group interviews are commonly used in social interventions for data collection. Focus group interviews may contribute to a better articulation of implicit opinions and preferences, and enable triangulation based on multiple perspectives and information (beneficiaries, stakeholders). We argue that focus groups in public policy research and social interventions are based on the same methodological principles as focus groups in basic research, including sampling, facilitation, and ethical issues. Some modifications are necessary due to the main purpose of focus groups (the intervention), situational factors, and logistic fieldwork issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologija\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologija\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/soc2001042i\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/soc2001042i","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

定量研究在公共政策中仍占主导地位,但定性方法越来越多地被用作原始数据的来源。除了主要的实践目的外,定性应用政策研究还用于使公共政策计划、社会干预和倡议合法化。与定量研究相比,定性方法提供了对上下文和复杂情境因素的洞察,这可能与成功的社会干预高度相关。焦点小组访谈通常用于收集数据的社会干预。焦点小组访谈可能有助于更好地表达隐性意见和偏好,并实现基于多个视角和信息(受益人、利益相关者)的三角测量。我们认为,公共政策研究和社会干预中的焦点小组与基础研究中的焦点小组基于相同的方法原则,包括抽样、促进和伦理问题。由于焦点小组的主要目的(干预)、情境因素和后勤实地工作问题,一些修改是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualitative applied research in social interventions and public policy programs: The case of focus group interviews
Quantitative research is still dominant in public policy, but qualitative methods are being increasingly used as sources of primary data. In addition to their main practical purpose, qualitative applied policy research studies are used to legitimize public policy programs, social interventions, and initiatives. Compared to quantitative research, qualitative methods provide insight into the contextual and complex situational factors, which may be highly relevant for successful social interventions. Focus group interviews are commonly used in social interventions for data collection. Focus group interviews may contribute to a better articulation of implicit opinions and preferences, and enable triangulation based on multiple perspectives and information (beneficiaries, stakeholders). We argue that focus groups in public policy research and social interventions are based on the same methodological principles as focus groups in basic research, including sampling, facilitation, and ethical issues. Some modifications are necessary due to the main purpose of focus groups (the intervention), situational factors, and logistic fieldwork issues.
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
Sociologija
Sociologija SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
40 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信