| Book Reviews Antonio Clericuzio, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 359-360 Abstract |  |
| Book Reviews Richard Dunn, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 357-358 Abstract | |
| Review Articles Boris Jardine, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 353-356 Abstract | |
| Research Articles TARO MIMURA, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 321-352 Abstract | |
| Research Articles CHRIS MANIAS, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 289-319 Abstract | |
| Research Articles DIARMID A. FINNEGAN, JONATHAN JEFFREY WRIGHT, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 261-287 Abstract | |
| Research Articles SEAN DYDE, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 233-259 Abstract | |
| Research Articles JAMES POSKETT, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 213-232 Abstract | |
| Research Articles FLORENCE GRANT, The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 48 Issue 02, pp 195-212 Abstract | |
A review of health sciences literature shows a substantial increase in qualitative publications. This work incorporates a certain number of research quality guidelines. We present the results of the Alceste® lexicometric analysis, which includes 133 quality grids for qualitative research covering five disciplinary fields of the health sciences: medicine and epidemiology, public health and health education, nursing, health sociology and anthropology, psychiatry and psychology. This analysis helped to cross-check the disciplinary fields with the various objectives assigned to the different criteria in the grids examined. The results obtained with Alceste® show the variability of the objectives sought by the authors of the guidelines. These discrepancies are not directly associated to disciplinary fields, and appear to be more closely linked to different qualitative research conceptualizations within the disciplines, and with essential qualitative research validation criteria. These conceptualizations must be clarified to help users better understand the objectives targeted by the grids, and promote more appreciation for qualitative research in the health sciences.
URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1502110
Quelle: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2275
Powered by
WordPress and plainscape theme.