2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/165818
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Reading qualitative studies
Author(s):
Sandelowski, Margarete
Author Details:
Margarete Sandelowski, PhD, Professor, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, email: margarete_sandelowski@unc.edu
Abstract:
Over the last 20 years, there have been thousands of papers written on the subject of quality in qualitative research. Addressing such concepts as reliability and rigor, and criteria and credibility, scholars across the practice and social science disciplines have sought to define what a good qualitative study is, and to describe and codify techniques for both ensuring and recognizing good studies. Yet after all of this effort, we seem to be no closer to establishing consensus on quality criteria, or even on whether it is appropriate to try to establish such a consensus. At the heart of this lack of consensus on quality and on consensus itself, and the subject of the proposed paper, is that the effort to judge a research report is not recognized as a context-specific interaction between text and reader. In the course of our own efforts to evaluate a set of qualitative studies -- in order to develop a protocol for synthesizing the findings from these studies -- we recognized how little we relied on any extant criteria for evaluating the validity or trustworthiness of studies and how much we relied on our own personal readings and even re-writings of them. Moreover, while one of us tended to assume an "aesthetic" stance, responding in terms of her total engagement with a text, the other one assumed an "efferent" stance, reading primarily for the clinically relevant information it provided. Although we often agreed on whether a report was good or bad, we did not agree for the same reasons. In the proposed paper, I address these findings and suggest adopting a view of the research report, not as a factual account of events after the fact, but rather as a vehicle for creating meaning that mediates between researcher/writer and reviewer/reader. I argue for locating the evaluation of qualitative studies, not in conceptualizations of and standards for validity and trustworthiness, but rather in a) reader-response theories, which emphasize the interactions between readers and texts by which "virtual texts" are produced, and in b) the literature on rhetoric and representation in science and ethnography, which emphasizes the writing practices intended to produce appealing texts. Readers of research reports bring to these reports a dynamic and unique configuration of experiences, knowledge, personality traits, and sociocultural orientations. Reviewers/readers belong to one or more "interpretive communities" -- such as qualitative researchers, academic nursing -- which strongly influence how and why they read, and what they read into a text. Researcher/writers, in turn, employ various writing conventions and literary devices in order to appeal to readers, and to shape and control their readings. The research report is itself better viewed, not as write-up, but rather as a "literary technology" whereby writers use literary devices -- such as the correlation coefficient and coding schemas -- rhetorically to engage readers to accept their study procedures and findings as valid.
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
27-Oct-2011
Conference Host:
Southern Nursing Research Society
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_US
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleReading qualitative studiesen_GB
dc.contributor.authorSandelowski, Margareteen_US
dc.author.detailsMargarete Sandelowski, PhD, Professor, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, email: margarete_sandelowski@unc.eduen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/165818-
dc.description.abstractOver the last 20 years, there have been thousands of papers written on the subject of quality in qualitative research. Addressing such concepts as reliability and rigor, and criteria and credibility, scholars across the practice and social science disciplines have sought to define what a good qualitative study is, and to describe and codify techniques for both ensuring and recognizing good studies. Yet after all of this effort, we seem to be no closer to establishing consensus on quality criteria, or even on whether it is appropriate to try to establish such a consensus. At the heart of this lack of consensus on quality and on consensus itself, and the subject of the proposed paper, is that the effort to judge a research report is not recognized as a context-specific interaction between text and reader. In the course of our own efforts to evaluate a set of qualitative studies -- in order to develop a protocol for synthesizing the findings from these studies -- we recognized how little we relied on any extant criteria for evaluating the validity or trustworthiness of studies and how much we relied on our own personal readings and even re-writings of them. Moreover, while one of us tended to assume an "aesthetic" stance, responding in terms of her total engagement with a text, the other one assumed an "efferent" stance, reading primarily for the clinically relevant information it provided. Although we often agreed on whether a report was good or bad, we did not agree for the same reasons. In the proposed paper, I address these findings and suggest adopting a view of the research report, not as a factual account of events after the fact, but rather as a vehicle for creating meaning that mediates between researcher/writer and reviewer/reader. I argue for locating the evaluation of qualitative studies, not in conceptualizations of and standards for validity and trustworthiness, but rather in a) reader-response theories, which emphasize the interactions between readers and texts by which "virtual texts" are produced, and in b) the literature on rhetoric and representation in science and ethnography, which emphasizes the writing practices intended to produce appealing texts. Readers of research reports bring to these reports a dynamic and unique configuration of experiences, knowledge, personality traits, and sociocultural orientations. Reviewers/readers belong to one or more "interpretive communities" -- such as qualitative researchers, academic nursing -- which strongly influence how and why they read, and what they read into a text. Researcher/writers, in turn, employ various writing conventions and literary devices in order to appeal to readers, and to shape and control their readings. The research report is itself better viewed, not as write-up, but rather as a "literary technology" whereby writers use literary devices -- such as the correlation coefficient and coding schemas -- rhetorically to engage readers to accept their study procedures and findings as valid.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T14:34:20Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-27en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T14:34:20Z-
dc.conference.hostSouthern Nursing Research Societyen_US
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.