- citati u SCIndeksu: [4]
- citati u CrossRef-u:[1]
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
 ]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:15
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:6
|
|
|
2010, vol. 44, br. 4, str. 485-502
|
|
Kontrola kvaliteta kvalitativnih istraživanja
Quality control in qualitative research
Sažetak
Snaženjem primene kvalitativnog istraživačkog pristupa pojačava se potreba za razvijanjem formalnih standarda procene kvalitativnih istraživanja, čime se unapređuje njihova verodostojnost. Nakon pregleda najznačajnijih metodoloških stanovišta o mogućnostima uspostavljanja kontrole kvaliteta kvalitativnih istraživanja, u radu se sumiraju principi dobre prakse u nekoliko oblasti: kontroli kvaliteta nacrta istraživanja, konceptualizaciji istraživačkog pitanja i stvaranje teorijskog okvira istraživanja, kontroli kvaliteta prikupljanja podataka, adekvatnosti uzorka, kontroli kvaliteta analize podataka, kao i izveštaj o istraživanju. Proceni kvaliteta podležu sve istraživačke faze, primenjene procedure i posebni istraživački postupci. Preduslov validne procene jeste dovoljna dokumentovanost primenjene istraživačke procedure, koju će istraživač ponuditi u adekvatnom formatu izveštaja. Sve faze istraživanja moraju biti otvorene za javnu procenu, a metodološka procedura opisana jasno i sa dovoljno detalja.
Abstract
By enhancing the application of qualitative research approach the need for the development of formal standards for appraisal of qualitative studies has strengthened, which has improved their credibility. After a review of the most significant methodological standpoints on the possibilities for establishing quality control of qualitative studies, in this paper, we summarize the principles of good practice in several areas: quality control of research design, conceptualization of research questions and creation of theoretical research framework, quality control of data collection, sample adequacy, quality control of data analysis, as well as with research reports. All the research levels, applied procedures and specific research proceedings are capable of quality appraisal. A precondition of valid appraisal is the sufficient documentation of an applied research procedure, that the researcher should offer in an adequate format of report. Every stage of research must be open for public appraisal, and the methodological apparatus used should be described clearly, precisely and in enough detail.
|
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
  
|
Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., Oost, H. (2008) Auditing Quality of Research in Social Sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42(2): 257-274
|
|
|
Ambert, A., Adler, P.A., Adler, P., Detzner, D.F. (1995) Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4): 879
|
|
1
|
Anfara, V.A., Brown, K.M., Mangione, T.L. (2002) Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38
|
|
|
Barbour, R.S. (2001) Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 322(7294): 1115-7
|
|
1
|
Barbour, R.S., Barbour, M. (2003) Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9(2): 179-186
|
|
|
Bergman, M.M., Coxon, A.P.M. (2005) The quality in qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6 (2): članak br. 34 www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/457/975 9. 5. 2009
|
|
1
|
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Robson, K. (2001) Focus groups in social research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
|
|
|
Cresswell, J. (2002) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall
|
|
|
Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L. (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3): 124-130
|
|
|
Cutcliffe, J.R., Mckenna, H.P. (1999) Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: the plot thickens. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2): 374-380
|
|
|
Davies, D., Dodd, J. (2002) Qualitative Research and the Question of Rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2): 279-289
|
|
|
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y.S., ur. (1994) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA-London, itd: Sage Publications
|
|
|
Denzin, N.K. (2008) Evolution of qualitative research. u: Given L.M. [ur.] The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, str. 311-318
|
|
2
|
Đurić, S. (2007) Fokus-grupni intervju. Beograd: Službeni glasnik
|
|
|
Eisenhart, M.A., Howe, K.R. (1992) Validity in qualitative research
|
|
2
|
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., Davidson, L. (2002) Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6): 717-732
|
|
|
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S. (1981) Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers
|
|
|
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S. (1982) Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30 (4), str. 233-252
|
|
1
|
Hammersley, M. (1992) What's wrong with ethnography: Methodological explorations. London: Routledge
|
|
|
Holloway, I. (1997) Basic concept for qualitative research. Oxford: Blackwell Science
|
|
2
|
Kirk, J., Miller, M.L. (1986) Reliability and validity of qualitative research. Berkeley, CA, itd: University of California Press
|
|
4
|
Krueger, R.A. (2000) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA-London, itd: Sage Publications
|
|
|
Lecompte, M.D., Goetz, J.P. (1982) Problems of reliability and vaidity in etnographic research. Review of Educational Research, vol. 52, br. 1, str. 31-60
|
|
1
|
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic enquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA-London, itd: Sage Publications
|
|
|
Malterud, K. (2001) The art and science of clinical knowledge: evidence beyond measures and numbers. Lancet, 358(9279): 397-400
|
|
|
Meyrick, J. (2006) What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5): 799-808
|
|
|
Millroy, L., Preissle, J., ur. Handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego: Academic Press
|
|
1
|
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., Spiers, J. (2002) Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2): 13-22
|
|
|
Patton, M.Q. (2008) Evaluation criteria. u: Given L.M. [ur.] The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, str. 301-303
|
|
7
|
Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA-London, itd: Sage Publications
|
|
|
Richardson, L. (1991) Postmodern social theory representational practices. Sociological Theory, vol. 9, str. 173-9
|
|
1
|
Safman, R.M., Sobal, J. (2004) Qualitative sample extensiveness in health education research. Health Education & Behavior, 31 (9), str. 9-21
|
|
|
Smith, J.K. (1984) The problem of criteria for judging interpretative inquiry. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6 (4), str. 379-391
|
|
19
|
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA-London, itd: Sage Publications
|
|
|
|
|