...
首页> 外文期刊>Advances in Health Sciences Education >Is it science? A study of the attitudes of medical trainees and physicians toward qualitative and quantitative research
【24h】

Is it science? A study of the attitudes of medical trainees and physicians toward qualitative and quantitative research

机译:是科学吗?医学实习生和医师对定性和定量研究的态度研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This study examined the degree of acceptance of qualitative research by medical trainees and physicians, and explored the causes for any differences in their support of qualitative versus quantitative research. Thirty-two individuals at four levels of medical training were studied. Eight philosophers of science served for construct validation. After completing a questionnaire, participants were interviewed using a semi-structured procedure. Transcriptions of the interviews were coded for emergent themes. Coding consensus was achieved via iterative discussion. When asked to categorize 10 projects, participants on average ranked quantitative science projects as “more scientific” than those using qualitative methodologies. Although participants appeared largely unaware of the principles underlying qualitative methodologies, most expressed the belief that qualitative data was more biased and less objective than quantitative data. Prior qualitative research experience was the major predictor of acceptance of qualitative research. Participants’ acceptance of interpretivistic or positivistic paradigms also influenced what type of science they felt was acceptable. Their level of training did not correlate with the acceptance of qualitative methodologies. On average, participants in our study favoured quantitative methodologies over qualitative methodologies. We postulate that this preference is due to their unawareness of the principles and paradigms underlying the methodologies.
机译:这项研究检查了医学实习生和医师对定性研究的接受程度,并探讨了他们对定性研究与定量研究的支持存在差异的原因。研究了四个医学训练水平的32个人。八位科学哲学家为构造验证服务。在完成问卷调查后,使用半结构化程序对参与者进行了采访。采访的笔录被编码为紧急主题。通过迭代讨论达成了编码共识。当被要求对10个项目进行分类时,与使用定性方法的参与者相比,参与者平均将量化科学项目评为“更科学”。尽管参与者似乎基本上不了解定性方法的基本原理,但大多数人认为,定性数据比定量数据更具偏见性和客观性。先前的定性研究经验是定性研究被接受的主要预测指标。参与者对解释性或实证主义范式的接受也影响了他们认为可以接受的科学类型。他们的培训水平与定性方法学的接受程度无关。平均而言,我们研究的参与者偏向于定量方法论而非定性方法论。我们假设这种偏爱是由于他们不了解该方法论背后的原理和范式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号