首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization
【2h】

Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

机译:定性研究的饱和度:探索其概念化和可操作性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
机译:饱和度已被广泛接受作为定性研究的一种方法学原理。通常认为,根据迄今已收集或分析的数据,不需要进一步的数据收集和/或分析。但是,对于饱和度应该如何概念化似乎存在不确定性,并且在使用中存在不一致之处。在本文中,我们试图阐明饱和度的性质,目的和用途,从而增加了关于不同方法论中饱和度作用的理论辩论。我们确定了四种不同的饱和方法,它们在采用归纳或演绎逻辑的程度以及相对强调数据收集,数据分析和理论化方面存在差异。我们探讨了饱和可能与这些不同方法相关的目的,以及对于如何以及何时寻求饱和的含义。在研究这些问题时,我们强调了饱和所基于的不确定逻辑-本质上是基于观察到的关于未观察到的预测性陈述,我们认为这会导致模棱两可的判断,并且可能部分地解释了围绕其使用的困惑。我们得出结论,饱和度应以与研究问题,理论立场和分析框架相一致的方式进行操作,而且其范围应有一定限制,以免饱和度丧失其饱和度的风险。如果其概念和用途扩展得太广,则连贯性和效力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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