Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Using the Right Tool for the Job
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Morse, Janice M. |
| Copyright Year | 2004 |
| Abstract | O of the most interesting things about qualitative methods is that even if you do qualitative research badly and with disregard for qualitative principles, or if you do not use the best method to answer your question, two important outcomes may occur. The first is that you might still have interesting results (interesting, yes, but maybe not valid, nor optimal, nor focused, nor answering your question). The second is your work still might be published. Perhaps you will find a journal, even a prestigious journal, unaccustomed to qualitative submissions. It might be a journal particularly interested in your research topic, or by the luck of the draw, you might have received an uninformed and supportive reviewer. The point is that qualitative inquiry might sometimes be published, even when it is of poor quality. The result of inferior work finding a publisher is unfortunate, for it is splitting researchers into factions with differing views on standards, appropriateness, and even what qualitative inquiry is. For instance, some say qualitative strategies must fit logically together in some sort of cohesive manner to form a method, and therefore methods should be standardized. Others say methods and their strategies are no more than guides, and researchers are free to deviate from rigid rules according to the needs of various projects. So we read of researchers using a grounded theory approach, mixing and muddling strategies, or using “generic” and nameless combinations of strategies, usually consisting of interviews and content or thematic analysis, as a method. The publication of poor qualitative research has important ramifications, for researchers can always find a published article to support their position, even when using methods creatively and not in the optimal, easiest, and most effective manner. Of greater concern, sometimes the misguided way can become faddishly popular, especially if it is taught and has been widely adopted as standard curricular content. In nursing, we have such a monumental problem, in which an ineffective method is being used in lieu of qualitative inquiry. In the ’70s, a group of nurses deliberately set out to strength concepts of significance to nursing practice so that nursing could develop a theoretical base. However, these nurses did not specify how this important work should be done. Decades later, and following numerous publications describing concept after concept, nursing has not achieved this envisioned goal, and our theoretical base remains weak. Why? The major reason is, I think, that the wrong tool has been institutionalized as the “means to the end.” That is, the wrong method is being used as the way to advance concepts, has become a standard part of graduate theory courses, and is used as the standard course assignment. Yet, the method prescribed is nonsensical—it uses a |
| Starting Page | 1029 |
| Ending Page | 1031 |
| Page Count | 3 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.1177/1049732304268418 |
| PubMed reference number | 15359040 |
| Journal | Medline |
| Volume Number | 14 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/8/1029.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304268418 |
| Journal | Qualitative health research |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
