Time to catch up...Qualitative research in child and adolescent psychiatry.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As a research tool, qualitative research has been of little interest to researchers in psychiatry. A few recent editorials and articles in Canadian psychiatry journals have attempted to nudge researchers towards qualitative methodologies. Considered anecdotal, abstruse, and failing to meet familiar (i.e. quantitative) criteria of reliability, validity and generalizability, qualitative methodologies have been spurned rather than welcomed in psychiatry research (Brown & Lloyd, 2001; Whitley & Crawford, 2005). The lack of a template for conducting research, the flexibility, and hence uncertainties, inherent in the method and the variety of methodologies from which to choose have quite simply deterred its uptake. Qualitative research is an especially relevant method to the subject matter of the Journal. In the past, research generally has been conducted on children and youth. More recently there has been a move towards research with children, engaging them as active participants, recognizing their rights, respecting their autonomy, and giving them voice (Grover, 2004). This requires recognising and reflecting on the inequalities of power and authority between researchers and child/adolescent participants. Qualitative research, with its focus on shared construction of meaning with participants, and flexibility in design, methods and process can partially disrupt these imbalances and give participants voice. Other challenges, too, remain: in recruitment, consent, access, confidentiality, interview space, and language skills, to name but a few (Bassett et al, 2007). The papers published in this qualitative issue have explicitly sought to address these challenges in often novel ways. Didkowsky, Ungar, & Liebenberg use video and photographs to breach the researcher-participant hierarchy of authority. Boydell, Volpe & Pignatiello’s use of televideo interviews give children and adolescents the freedom to walk away if they so choose. Both Alaggia and Grover explore participants’ subjective worlds, importantly giving voice, in Alaggia’s study, to adult survivor’s experience of child sexual abuse, and in Grover’s research, to the world views used by litigants and interveners, including mental health professionals, to position their arguments in legal cases. As is evident in Mordoch’s and Didkowsky et al’s papers, data beyond that elicited in interviews provides rich, multiple ways of looking, seeing, and understanding participants’ experiences. In the papers published here, videos, photographs, interviews, and/or drawings were analysed with a variety of methods: Didkowsky et al’s reflexive and visual methods, Grover’s analysis of text recorded in a legal case, Mordoch’s conceptually-dense understanding of children’s experiences using grounded theory, and Alaggia’s, Boydell et al’s and Grover’s phenomenological analysis of the subjective experiences of participants. Alaggia’s analysis included a relatively recent addition to the researcher’s toolbox: qualitative software. ATLAS.ti, NVIVO, HyperRESEARCH, and Transana, to name but a few, offer both advantages and disadvantages (Bassett, 2004). With reflexive use of software, thorough, replicable, trustworthy and credible analyses can be produced. Systematic and rigorous qualitative research has much to offer child and adolescent psychiatry. A wide range of methodologies and the availability of new digital technologies open doors not previously explored. Indeed, the insight to be gained from a variety of data sources and importance of context in understanding children’s lives is evident in all the papers here. The Journal welcomes your reaction to this theme issue and looks forward to future submissions of your qualitative research manuscripts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».