设计和开展一项质性研究需要做到方法自洽,即方法论立场、研究方式及具体研究方法彼此兼容,保持内在统一性。要做到方法自洽,研究者必须首先澄清方法论预设;研究方式与所探究的问题应相契合;对具体研究方法的操作应与研究方式、方法论保持协调一致。进一步讨论的问题包括方法自洽必须以“问题”为中心;加强研究的自反性以促进方法自洽;方法自洽应纳入质性研究的评价标准等。
Abstract
There is a common phenomenon that researchers using qualitative research in psychology lack of methodological level of thinking, which leads to the inconsistency of methodology, approaches and procedures, and ultimately cause the poor validity of the study. This study attempts to clarify how to achieve the methodological consistency of qualitative research methodology, approaches and procedures, and guide researchers to move from spontaneous to conscious selection of methodological position, approaches and procedures, so that qualitative research can be more rigorous and standardized, and the quality and validity would be improved.
The scientific methodological system is typically divided into three levels: methodology, approaches, and procedures. The primary methodological categories of qualitative research in psychology include post-positivism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, and social constructionism.Qualitative research includes approaches, such as grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, psychobiography, and narrative analysis. Different approaches contain various procedures which consist of literature review, question formulation, data collection, and data analysis techniques. The research approach, which is guided by methodology and contains specific procedures, integrates methodology and specific procedures. The matching of methodology, research approach, and procedures is called methodological consistency.
To achieve methodological consistency, firstly, researchers must clarify their methodological status. Researchers applying different research paradigms see the “world” differently, focus on different problems, and solve them in distinct ways. The details and aspects of experience mean a lot in phenomenological research while the “action of language” plays an important role in social constructionist research. Secondly, researchers should be clearly aware of the methodological assumption of the selecting research approach. For example, when using the grounded theory, it can be guided by critical realism or constructionism, which must be clearly demonstrated by the researcher. In addition, whether the research approach is appropriate to the purpose of research need to be considered. Thirdly, the specific research procedures must be consistent with the research approach and methodology. The same research strategies are used in various ways and they have different emphasis in different research approaches and methodologies. The methodology and research approaches somehow determine how researchers ask questions, interview strategies, coding methods, the analysis process, text writing, and so on.
This study argues that methodological consistency can be achieved by following means. Firstly, researchers should be problem-centered and the approach used in the research should be chosen according to the possibility and feasibility of answering the research question. Secondly, researchers can promote methodological consistency by enhancing the reflexivity of their research. Reflexivity is essential to establish rigor and validity and can be demonstrated at all stages of the study. Thirdly, this study proposes that methodological consistency should be included in the criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Assessing whether the researcher clarifies the methodological position and the consistency of the research orientation, research objectives, research approaches, research procedures, and analytical perspectives can improve the validity of the study.
Although there is no single standard for delineating methodologies, research approaches, and specific research procedures, it is undeniable that the researcher must carefully manage the relationship between methodology, research approach and procedures, and consider how to produce more insightful and meaningful qualitative research by achieving methodological consistency.
关键词
质性研究 /
方法自洽 /
方法论 /
研究方式 /
研究方法
Key words
qualitative research /
methodological consistency /
research approaches /
research procedures
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 陈向明. (2000). 质的研究方法与社会科学研究. 教育科学出版社..
[2] 陈尹, 杨莉萍. (2022). 质性研究者面临的方法论困境与出路. 浙江万里学院学报, 35(4), 50-56.
[3] 崔光辉. (2008). 走向真实的世界——现象学心理学研究(博士学位论文). 南京师范大学.
[4] 风笑天. (2022). 个案的力量: 论个案研究的方法论意义及其应用. 社会科学, 5, 140-149.
[5] 高觉敷. (1995). 西方心理学史论. 安徽教育出版社..
[6] 洪汉鼎. (2021). 论哲学诠释学的阐释概念. 中国社会科学, 7, 114-139.
[7] 卡拉·威利格. (2013). 心理学质性研究导论. 人民邮电出版社..
[8] 罗祎楠. (2019). 思想史视野中的质性研究: 以方法意涵的构建为例. 社会, 39(1), 98-128.
[9] Schultz D. P.,& Schultz S. E. (2014). 现代心理学史. 中国轻工业出版社..
[10] 托马斯·A·施瓦特. (2007). 定性研究: 方法论基础(一) (风笑天译). 重庆大学出版社.
[11] 托马斯·库恩. (2004). 科学革命的结构. 北京大学出版社..
[12] 吴继霞, 何雯静. (2019). 扎根理论的方法论意涵、建构与融合. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版), 7(1), 35-49.
[13] 杨莉萍, 刘云, 亓立东. (2024). 质性研究多元方法论视角下文献的意义与综述方式. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版), 12(1), 14-23.
[14] 叶浩生. (2004). 社会建构论与西方心理学的后现代取向. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 22(1), 43-48.
[15] 叶晓玲, 李艺. (2020). 现象学作为质性研究的哲学基础: 本体论与认识论分析. 教育研究与实验,1, 11-19.
[16] 张新平, 陈红燕. (2012). 论教育管理学的“两层面三层次”方法体系. 教育研究, 33(10), 12-18.
[17] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328-352.
[18] Busetto L., Wick W., & Gumbinger C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2, 14.
[19] Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE.
[20] Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34-45.
[21] Chwalisz K., Shah S. R., & Hand K. M. (2008). Facilitating rigorous qualitative research in rehabilitation psychology. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53(3), 387-399.
[22] Coombe C. M., Schulz A. J., Brakefield-Caldwell W., Gray C., Guzman J. R., Kieffer E. C., & Israel B. A. (2020). Applying experiential action learning pedagogy to an intensive course to enhance capacity to conduct community-based participatory research. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 6(3), 168-182.
[23] Driel, E. Y., & Verkuyten, M. (2022). Contact theory and the multiethnic community of Riace, Italy: An ethnographic examination. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(5), 2326-2343.
[24] Englander, M. (2016). The phenomenological method in qualitative psychology and psychiatry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 11(1), 30682.
[25] Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.
[26] Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1997). Toward a cultural constructionist psychology. Theory and Psychology, 7, 31-36.
[27] Giorgi, A. (2010). Phenomenological psychology: A brief history and its challenges. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 41(2), 145-179.
[28] Giorgi, B. (2011). A phenomenological analysis of the experience of pivotal moments in therapy as defined by clients. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 42(1), 61-106.
[29] Grzanka, P. R., & Moradi, B. (2021). The qualitative imagination in counseling psychology: Enhancing methodological rigor across methods. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 247-258.
[30] Ja?rvinen, M., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2020). Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences. SAGE
[31] Jasper, M. A. (1994). Issues in phenomenology for researchers of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 309-314.
[32] Kelly M., Dowling M., &Millar M. (2018). The search for understanding: The role of paradigms. Nurse Researcher, 25(4), 9-13.
[33] Kovács A., Kiss D., Kassai S., Pados E., Kaló Z., & Rácz J. (2019). Mapping qualitative research in psychology across five Central-Eastern European countries: Contemporary trends: A paradigm analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(3), 354-374.
[34] Lester, J. N., & O’Reilly, M. (2021). Introduction to special issue quality in qualitative approaches: Celebrating heterogeneity. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 295-304.
[35] Levitt, H. M. (2020). Reporting qualitative research in psychology: How to meet APA style journal article reporting standards. American Psychological Association.
[36] Levitt H. M., Morrill Z., & Collins K. M. (2020). Considering methodological integrity in counselling and psychotherapy research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 20(3), 422-428.
[37] Levitt H. M., Motulsky S. L., Wertz F. J., Morrow S. L., & Ponterotto J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2-22.
[38] Mayer, C. H. (2021). Albert Camus-a psychobiographical approach in times of covid-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 644579.
[39] Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23-48.
[40] Smith J.A., Flowers P., & Larkin M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method and research. SAGE Publications Ltd.
[41] Suarez-Balcazar Y., Francisco V. T., & Rubén Chávez N. (2020). Applying community-based participatory approaches to addressing health disparities and promoting health equity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 66(3-4), 217-221.
[42] Tanggaard, L. (2014). Ethnographic fieldwork in psychology: Lost and found? Qualitative Inquiry, 20(2), 167-174.
[43] Urcia, I. A. (2021). Comparisons of adaptations in grounded theory and phenomenology: Selecting the specific qualitative research methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1-14.
[44] Walters A. J. (1995). The phenomenological movement: Implications for nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(4), 791-799.
[45] Willig, C. (2019). What can qualitative psychology contribute to psychological knowledge? Psychological Methods, 24(6), 796-804.
基金
*本研究得到国家社会科学基金项目（22BSH101）的资助
PDF(551 KB)
