Guidelines for Qualitative Research Manuscripts

合集下载

Section 5 Qualitative Research

WHEN TO USE --- AND WHEN NOT TO USE --- QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
8. Reducing bias and Errors in Qualitative research
WHEN TO USE --- AND WHEN NOT TO USE --- QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Qualitative Research is: An excellent tool to lay the foundation of category and brand strategic understanding Valuable to provide ongoing input to continuously build on, and improve products and marketing bundles. The key motivation in using qualitative research should be: What can I learn to make (the Product, the advertising, the marketing bundle -- whatever is being researched) BETTER? As such it is a learning,exploring, probing process. It should NOT be a judgmental “go/no go” tool: decisions on which concept, product, or advertising to ultimately launch are extremely important and require a quantitative validation among the appropriate consumer sample.

苏格兰围术期预防的抗菌药物使用

Evidence
KEY TO EVIDENCE STATEMENTS AND GRADES OF RECOMMENDATIONS
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE 1++ 1+ 12++ 2+ 23 4 High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias Well conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a low risk of bias Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a high risk of bias High quality systematic reviews of case control or cohort studies High quality case control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding or bias and a high probability that the relationship is causal Well conducted case control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding or bias and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal Case control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding or bias and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal Non-analytic studies, eg case reports, case series Expert opinion

CNAS-GL038：2019《临床免疫定性检验程序性能验证指南》

CNAS-GL038临床免疫学定性检验程序性能验证指南Guidance of Verification of Qualitative Measurement Procedures used in the Clinical Immunology中国合格评定国家认可委员会前言本文件由中国合格评定国家认可委员会（CNAS）制定，是对CNAS-CL02：2012《医学实验室质量和能力认可准则》和 CNAS-CL02-A004：2018《医学实验室质量和能力认可准则在临床免疫学定性检验领域的应用说明》中有关临床免疫学定性检验程序进行性能验证实验所做的具体解释和指导，供医学实验室和评审员参考使用。

本文件为首次发布。

临床免疫学定性检验程序性能验证指南1 范围本指南适用于申请认可或已获认可的医学实验室对临床免疫学（定性）检验程序进行性能验证实验活动，也可供评审员在现场评审过程中参考使用。

本指南主要适用于医学实验室使用的临床免疫学定性检验方法，其他专业领域使用的定性检验程序/方法可参考使用。

临床免疫学定性检验程序，也称临床免疫学定性检验方法，在本指南中统一称为临床免疫学定性检验程序（以下简称“检验程序”），包括纯定性免疫检验、半定量（滴度）的免疫检验和以定量方式报定性结果的免疫检验等各项检验活动。

本文件适用于医学实验室采用的经确认的检验程序。

2 规范性引用文件下列文件对于本指南的应用是必不可少的。

凡是注明日期的引用文件，仅该版本适用于本指南。

凡是未注明日期的引用文件，其最新版本（包括所有的修改部分）适用于本指南。

WS/T 416-2013《干扰实验指南》WS/T 494-2017《临床定性免疫检验重要常规项目分析质量要求》WS/T 505-2017《定性测定性能评价指南》WS/T 514-2017《临床检验方法检出能力的确立和验证》3 术语和定义对于本标准，GB/T 29791.1-2013（ISO 18113-1：2009，IDT）中的定义适用。

Qualitative Research Methods (Research Method)

– Findings:
• Women shave very differently from men • Women shave more surface area than men but only shave two or three times per week • Women prefer to shave in the shower and under dim lighting • But men shave in front of a mirror • Women prefer razors with a firm grip and those that give a clean, smooth shave
Q u a n tita tiv e R esearch
O b je c tiv e
T o g a in a q u a lita tiv e u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e u n d e rly in g re a s o n s a n d m o tiv a tio n s
Ch 8
9
II. Phenomenology
• It describes the meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon (e.g., preference of luxury brands, pathological gambling, Internet addiction)
5
Ch 8
– Quantitative Research usually comes next
Example: Gillette Supports EquShave

CNAS-CL01-A001：2018《检测和校准实验室能力认可准则在微生物检测领域的应用说明》

CNAS-CL01-A001检测和校准实验室能力认可准则在微生物检测领域的应用说明Guidance on the application of testing and calibration laboratory competence accreditation criteria in the field ofmicrobiological testing中国合格评定国家认可委员会前言本文件由中国合格评定国家认可委员会（CNAS）制定，是CNAS根据微生物检测领域的特性而对CNAS-CL01:2018《检测和校准实验室能力认可准则》所作的进一步说明，并不增加或减少该准则的要求。

本文件与CNAS-CL01:2018《检测和校准实验室能力认可准则》同时使用。

在结构编排上，本文件章、节的条款号和条款名称均采用CNAS-CL01:2018中章、节的条款号和条款名称，对CNAS-CL09:2013应用说明的具体内容在对应条款后给出。

本文件代替：CNAS-CL09:2013。

相对于CNAS-CL09:2013，本文件除编辑性修订外，主要内容变化为：——5.5.2条将质量手册中应规定生物安全责任人的作用和职责，改为实验室应规定的作用和职责；——6.6.2c)将关键培养基和自制培养基技术验收合并在一个条款中改为“对检测结果有影响的培养基和试剂应进行技术验收：”然后分条款描述；——7.3.1去掉了“取样应由经过培训合格的人员进行”。

本文件所代替文件的历次版本发布情况为：——CNAS-CL09：2006；——CNAS-CL09：2013。

检测和校准实验室能力认可准则在微生物检测领域的应用说明1 范围本文件适用于食品及其相关产品、化妆品、环境样品、玩具、医药、纺织品、卫生用品、消毒产品等微生物检测领域实验室的认可活动。

微生物检测领域包括对样品中微生物进行的定性分析或定量检测。

微生物专业中涉及的病毒检验、基因扩增检验等应符合相关专业的要求。

Qualitative Research Methods定性分析英文课件

• Choice between different research methods should depend upon what you are trying to find out.
1. Interview: types
• ‘Structured’
– Non-flexible comparisons – Numbers matter
• ‘Semi-structured’
– Flexible structure comparisons + specificities – Numbers can matter
• ‘Open-ended’
– No structure interviewees’ experience – Numbers do not matter
Qualitative Interviewing
• Setting up a situation (the interview) that allows a participant the time and scope to talk about their opinions on a subject. • To understand the participant’s point of view rather than make generalisations about behaviour. • It allows the respondent to talk freely about issues and does not constrain their responses.
EXAMPLE: Semi-structured interviews
• Barriers and challenges faced by women in the construction industry

介绍一种社会研究方法英文

介绍一种社会研究方法英文AbstractQualitative research is a valuable method for understanding and exploring social phenomena in depth. This article provides an overview of qualitative research, including its definition, characteristics, and various research techniques. It also discusses the advantages and limitations of qualitative research, emphasizing its importance in contributing to the social sciences and informing policy development.1. Definition of Qualitative ResearchQualitative research involves the collection and analysis ofnon-numerical data to gain insights into social phenomena. Unlike quantitative research that focuses on measurable data and statistical analysis, qualitative research emphasizes the subjective meanings individuals attach to events and experiences. It seeks to understand the social and cultural factors that influence human behavior and interactions.2. Characteristics of Qualitative ResearchQualitative research exhibits several key characteristics, distinguishing it from quantitative research:- Focuses on the subjective experiences and meanings of individuals- Utilizes open-ended and flexible research instruments, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis- Aims to uncover underlying motivations, beliefs, and cultural influences - Offers a holistic and contextual understanding of social phenomena - Emphasizes researcher interpretation and reflexivity3. Research Techniques in Qualitative ResearchQualitative research employs a variety of techniques to gather and analyze data, including:- Interviews: Researchers conduct open-ended interviews, allowing participants to share their perspectives and experiences.- Observations: Researchers observe and record behaviors, interactions, and environments to gain a deeper understanding of social phenomena. - Focus groups: Researchers facilitate group discussions to explore shared beliefs, attitudes, and opinions.- Document analysis: Researchers analyze documents, such as diaries, academic papers, or media sources, to uncover social insights.- Case studies: Researchers conduct in-depth investigations of specific cases or individuals to develop detailed narratives and understand complex social processes.4. Advantages of Qualitative ResearchQualitative research offers several advantages, including:- Depth and richness of data: Through open-ended interviews and observations, qualitative research allows for a detailed exploration of social phenomena and the factors influencing them.- Flexibility: Qualitative research methods can adapt to the research context, providing researchers with the freedom to explore unexpected areas and adapt research instruments.- Contextual understanding: Qualitative research provides a holistic view of social phenomena, taking into account the social, cultural, and historical contexts that shape them.- Capacity for exploring sensitive topics: Qualitative research methods facilitate the exploration of sensitive topics, allowing participants to share and reflect on personal experiences.5. Limitations of Qualitative ResearchWhile qualitative research has numerous strengths, it also has limitations, including:- Subjectivity: Qualitative research relies on researcher interpretation, potentially introducing bias and reducing objectivity.- Limited generalizability: Due to the small sample sizes andcontext-specific nature of qualitative research, findings may have limited applicability to broader populations.- Time and resource-intensive: Qualitative research can betime-consuming and requires significant resources to conduct interviews, transcribe data, and analyze findings.- Scope of analysis: The depth of analysis in qualitative research often limits the breadth of topics explored.ConclusionQualitative research is an important method in the social sciences, offering a deep understanding of complex social phenomena. Its utilization of open-ended interviews, observations, and document analysis provides a rich and nuanced exploration of subjective experiences and meanings. Although qualitative research has its limitations, its strengths lie in its capacity for contextual understanding, flexibility, and exploration of sensitive topics. Policymakers and researchers alike can benefit from incorporating qualitative research into their studies to gain a comprehensive understanding of social issues and inform evidence-based decision-making.。

qualitative research 研究方法

MethodologyThis study is set in the qualitative research paradigm as defined by Strauss and Corbin (1990) to refer to research about “persons’ lives, stories, behaviour…organizational functioning, social movements or interactional relationships” (p.17). The methods used in this study were influenced by the constructs of grounded theory where the purpose is to “reveal participants’ views, feelings, intentions, and actions as well as the contexts and structures of their lives” (Charmaz, 2006, p.26) in order to form ideas from the data. That is, my goal was to understand the writing challenges for students from the perspectives of both students and instructors and in doing so, I needed to consider the social, individual and educational factors that contribute d to the participants’ opinions.I chose interviews as my main data gathering instrument, as according to Creswell (1997), these “play a central role in the data collection in a grounded theory study” (p.122) and I relied on emergent design, integral to a grounded theory study (Charmaz, 2006), where “one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.23), to design a set of questions that served as a guide for conducting semi-structured interviews with the participants (see Appendix 1 and 2). The interview questions followed the participants’ train of thought and at times, wandered from the pre-scripted questions I had prepared.ParticipantsAll participants in this qualitative study were situated at a medium sized Canadian University within the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences. They included five second year individual students, a group of nine first year students and five professors. My sampling of participants was strategic, as is suggested by Geisler (2004) to be a more defensible means(rather than merely convenient sampling) with which to “guide (my) choice of cases within a site” (p.18). I first used criterion-based sampling that “specif(ied) a certain relevant criteria” (Geisler, 2004, p.18), in choosing the study participants. Thus, the student participants were drawn from first and second year, which enabled me to acquire perceptions from first year students on their current experiences and comparative reflections from second year students on their experiences with academic writing in the first and second year. The professors are instructors of both first year seminars and regular first year courses, which are described below. This duality provided an opportunity to gather data on their perceptions of students’ writing needs from each of these classroom environments.After choosing the samples based on these criteria, I then used a stratified sampling strategy to “take advantage of knowing something about the existing variations in a site” (Geisler, p.18) and chose both student and instructor participants from a variety of disciplines. This choice allowed me to compare the perceptions of professors and students on a disciplinary basis. Further stratifying amongst the second year students based on varying first year experiences allowed for examination of a variety of pedagogical environments that could affect first year students’ writing ability. These experiences included enrollment in one of the following:(1) First Year Experience, which is an innovative attempt to facilitate the transition for first year students to university by providing smaller classes (maximum 100 students) that are enmeshed ina cluster of four pre-determined courses and then a fifth course of the student’s choice(2) First year seminar, either within or outside of the FYE, which provides an even smaller environment of approximately 25 students where the instructor is expected to provide greater focus on writing development.(3) Mandatory writing course, which is established as one semester of an English literature course.(4) Academic Support Program, which provides the opportunity for university study to students whose high school grades were below the acceptable standard.(5) Regular first year course, which does not have any particular focus on writing and in this study, may have up to 100 students enrolled.The study participants and programs of study are identified by a pseudonym in this thesis for the purposes of maintaining confidentiality. The participants are described as follows: Student Participants. “I mean even if I get a good mark I think that anytime you get a mark less than perfect there has to be a comment or else why didn’t you get perfect?” (March 25, 2009). Alana is 19 years old and English is her first language. Her major is Human Rights and her minor is Mass Communications. Alana is more interested in Mass Communications than Human Rights and plans to switch her major accordingly for next year. Alana was an above average student in high school where she was on the honour roll for two years. Her grades were lower in math and the sciences than in the arts or social science courses as she claimed “they (those subjects) just came easier to me.” Both of her parents have university degre es and they encouraged her to go to university. Alana described herself as an active reader who enjoys reading popular fiction in her spare time. In addition to reading, Alana is a competitive dancer, works as a server in a restaurant and is a volunteer with a local youth organization. Alana was selected for this study as she had participated in a mandated first year writing course at the university she previously attended.“I think it’s (writing) one of the cornerstones of education in university” (February 25, 2009). Ryan is 20 years old and English is his second language, which he began learning at theage of 7. His major is History and his minor is Applied Language Studies. He described himself as a motivated student who is interested in learning about the discipline of history. Ryan described his high school academic experience as “pretty good” and he did not perceive any major problems adapting from high school to university. Both of his parents have university degrees and they expected him to go to university. Ryan enjoys reading, particularly fiction, listening to music, boxing, working out at the gym, camping, cycling, reading the news and surfing the Internet. Ryan was chosen for this study as he participated in a first year seminar outside of the First Year Experience program.“I expect the professors to give a very clear definition of what their expectations are so that I’m not going off in a direction that won’t be beneficial towards the end product” (February 26, 2009). Danielle is 39 years old and both English and French are her first languages. Her major is Political Science and her minor is Religion. She is a highly motivated student and anticipated that a background in political science would give her a better knowledge base from which to understand the historical component of present day political issues and the Religion courses would help her to understand the perspectives of other people’s cultures. Danielle was an average achieving student in high school and did not find it very challenging. Her mother did not finish high school and her father completed one year of college. Her parents are impressed and supportive of Danielle’s decision to return to school. Danielle enjoys reading, particularly books of a philosophical nature. When she’s not a full time student during the academic year, Danielle is an officer in the Canadian Forces, specifically in the field of logistics for the army where she engages in military training during the summer months. Danielle was selected for this study as she participated in a first year seminar within the First Year Experience program.“She kinda directed us through it and showed…like…this is one of the perfect papers, we didn’t really go over it in detail but she definitely gave us access” (February 27, 2009). Paul is 22 years old and English is his first language. He took two years off between high school and university and now feels highly motivated to be in school. His major is philosophy, which he believes he is well suited for as he claims this discipline allows him the freedom to argue his opinions rather than regurgitating facts. Paul enjoys school and is intending to do graduate work in this discipline. Paul was not a high achieving student in high school due to lack of motivation and is grateful that his teachers encouraged him to go to university. His parents were also encouraging, as his father, who has a university degree and his mother, who is in the midst of attaining one, both value higher education. Paul enjoys reading for interest but is consumed with academic reading during the school year. He also plays guitar and video games, enjoys on-line chatting and hanging out with friends. Paul was selected for this study as he was enrolled in the First Year Experience program in first year but did not take a first year seminar.“First year was harder, obviously, and I didn’t have that much to go on…because in high school you don’t do anything, you really don’t” (March 14, 2009). Sarah is 19 years old and her first language is English although she was living in an Arabic speaking environment for the first two years of her life. Her major is Sociology, which she does not seem to have much interest in. She feels there is too much of a focus on writing assignments, which she finds cumbersome and research methods, which she finds boring. She intends to stay with Sociology as she does not know what else to do. Sarah was not motivated in high school and her performance reflected that. Her parents, who both have university degrees, were very supportive of Sarah going to university. Sarah enjoys reading, drawing, painting, playing guitar, editing online music videos and hangingout with friends. She was selected for this study as she participated in the Academic Support Program for first year.In addition to the identified second year students, there was a focus group of nine First Year Experience students in a first year seminar (in English) who participated in an open discussion within the context of their classroom. Initially, I was to observe this class during regular class instruction but their professor had suggested that I conduct an open discussion with the students about their writing needs. She had offered this opportunity as the students had completed their writing assignments for the year and therefore, she did not anticipate much relevant discussion in her class regarding writing instruction.Faculty Participants. The professors range in teaching experience from five to twenty-five years and in the disciplines of English, Philosophy, Language Studies, Psychology and History. They all currently teach first year students both within first year seminars and outside. In addition, four of the five participants have also taught these seminars within the First Year Experience program.DataThe university ethics committee approved this study and I prepared and had completed consent forms for the participants. The data gathering instruments used in this study included: (1) interviews, (2) class discussion, and (3) samples of students’ academ ic writing. Pre-designed questions guided the interviews and class discussion, yet the semi-structure nature of the interviews allowed for divergences as necessary (see interview questions in Appendix 1 and 2).The writing samples that were used included two graded papers from each second year student; one they had written in first year and one in second year, which facilitated our discussion on their writing styles, changes to their writing that may have occurred between firstand second year and written instructor feedback that may have hindered or helped their writing. An additional aim for the collection of student texts was for the purposes of data triangulation, which Tashakkori & Teddlie (1998) refer to as a technique of data collection to study the same phenomenon within the same study (p.18). Furthermore, Lincoln and Guba (1985) insist on triangulation as a requirement to shed some validity on study revelations: “As the study unfolds and particular pieces of information come to light, steps should be taken to validate each against at least one other source (for example, a second interview) and/or a second method (for example, an observation in addition to an interview). No single item of information . . . should ever be given serious consideration unless it can be triangulated” (p. 283). Thus, in this study, I reviewed students’ texts as a means to discover if what the students’ were identifying as writing problems and reasons for such problems, were supported by the texts they produced. ProcedureThe interviews of all of the study participants occurred over a two-month period. I met with each of the individual student participants, on two occasions, each approximately 30 minutes in length. All of the students appeared to be at ease during the interviews and seemingly excited for the opportunity to express their thoughts on this topic. The interviews took place in a private office on the university campus and were audio recorded and later transcribed into MS Word documents, which served as the basis for analytical coding. I also made observational notes that were added to the participants’ documents.The interview questions for the individual student participants were comprised of three parts and were divided over two interviews. The initial interview concentrated on the first and second parts that covered questions on personal history such as language and family background, academic motivation and performance, and extracurricular interests, as well as perceptions onstudents’ academic writi ng needs and the support they have received to meet these needs. The second interview centred on the third part of the questions, which focused on the differences in the students’ writing as per their two provided assignments and corresponding feedback.Prior to the second interview, I read the student’s texts; highlighted the editorial marks, corrections and comments that were made on the papers; and noted differences on style, structure and form between the texts. The second interview had two purposes and was conducted using a discourse based interview approach (Odell, Goswami & Herrington, 1983), “to help uncover writers’ tacit knowledge of, and motivation for, texts” (Prior, 2004, p.196). The first purpose was to see how the students interpreted and were affected by the comments made on their papers and the second, was to gain insight on how the students knew how to write within a particular genre. For example, Sarah had to write a comparative analysis of theoretical approaches to understanding a sociological phenomenon.I met with the focus group of nine first year seminar students on one occasion for approximately 30 minutes. During this time, the professor had purposely exited the classroom to encourage her students to express their thoughts freely. I had arranged the seats in a semi-circle, placing myself at the top-middle position in an attempt to create a more intimate and comfortable environment for the students. The discussion was guided by the following four questions I had prepared: (1) What is the role of writing in the university and the world at large? (2) What are your attitudes about school writing? (3) What are your greatest obstacles to you becoming better writers? (4) What are some sources of help you have received or could receive to improve your writing? In keeping with the emergent design of the study methods, further questions and topics for consideration emerged throughout the discussion.The discussion was audio recorded after having asked the students for their permission to do so. During the discussion, I initiated the questions and asked for the students’ opinions. Five out of the nine students verbally participated in the discussion. I avoided asking specific students their opinions not only because I didn’t know their names but also I intended this discussion to be a comfortable means for the students to express themselves and was not interested in putting anyone on the spot. Before leaving, I invited the students to contact me by email if anyone had some afterthoughts that they’d like to share. For the record, I have not received any further commentary.I met with each of the five professors in their offices on the university campus. We met on one occasion for approximately 40 minutes where the interviews were audio recorded. The interviews focused on the professors’ opinions on the writing needs of first year students and what supports should be in place on campus to meet these needs. All of the participants were seemingly open, comfortable and eager to partake in the interviews.Following the transcription of each interview for both the individual students and the professors, I forwarded the participants a copy of their transcribed session to ensure member checks, which is, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985) “to be the most critical technique for establishing credibility” (as cited in Cresswell, 1998, p.203). The participants reported an overall satisfaction with the text and only requested minor changes to ensure their personal confidentiality.AnalysisStudents’ perceptions of their writing needs are the main focus for this study, therefore I began the analysis with the data that emanated from these participants and then afterwards, compared it to the data from the professors. Geisler (2004) informs us that, “although manystrains of qualitative analysis exist, most involve coding segments of verbal data as a way of locating phenomenon of interest” (p.xix). Therefore to analyze my data for this study, I used the coding premise of Grounded Theory which Strauss & Corbin (1990) define as a theory that is “inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents” (p. 23) with a purpose “to build theory that is faithful to and illuminates the area under study” (p.24). Furthermore, Charmaz asserts that Grounded Theory coding is an essential tool for data analysis, referring to it as “the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data” (Charmaz, 2006, p.46).Strauss and Corbin (1990) inform us that, “coding represents the operations by which data are broken down, conceptualized, and put back together in new ways” (p.57). For data analysis in this study, I used their method of open coding, which they defined as “the part of analysis that pertains specifically to the naming and categorizing of phenomena through close examination of data” (p.62). At the first stage of the coding process, I followed Strauss and Corbin’s recommendation of making concepts my basic unit of analysis, which entailed labeling phenomena as follows:Taking apart an observation, a sentence, a paragraph and giving each discrete incident, idea or event, a name, something that stands for or represents a phenomenon. Just how do we do this? We ask questions about each one, like: What is this? What does it represent? We compare incident with incident as we go along so that similar phenomena can be given the same name. (p. 63)(See the excerpt from an interview with a student in Figure 1 below as an illustration of this coding).Figure 1: Labeling Data with Descriptive CodesAfter conceptualizing the data, I engaged in Strauss and Corbin’s second suggested stage in the open coding process, discovering categories. Strauss and Corbin describe the categorization stage in the following way: “Once we have identified particular phenomena in the data, we can begin to group our concepts around them. This is done to reduce the number of units with which we have to work. The process of grouping concepts that seem to pertain to the same phenomena is called categorizing” (p. 65). These scholars then suggest that the categories be given conceptual names that are more abstract than the concepts that are grouped under them. For example, in Figure 1, I grouped the identified concepts into a category called clear expectations (See Figure 2 below as a presentation of further conceptual categories identified from the interviews with students).Figure 2: Categorizing ConceptsAfter categorizing the concepts, I began a third stage of coding, which is based on Strauss & Corbin’s (1990) premise of axial coding as “a set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories” (p.96) but differs in intent. Strauss and Corbin’s focus is on specifying a sub-category “in terms of the conditions that give rise to it; the context in which it is embedded; the action/interactional strategies by which it is handled…and the consequences of those strategies” (p.97) whereas I have chosen to simply reassemble the identified categories to form overarching themes. I based this strategy on Charmaz’s (2006) suggestion that “those who prefer simple, flexible guidelines-and can tolerate ambiguity-do not need to do axial coding. They can follow the leads that they define in their empirical materials” (p.61). (See Figu re 3 below for an illustration of the overarching themes that resulted from combining the categorized concepts in figure 2).Figure 3: Overarching ThemesIn addition to analyzing the data from the interviews of the participants, I analyzed two samples of written work from each of the second year students using the existing DELNA (Diagnostic English Language Needs Assessment) rating scale as a guide which according to Knoch (2009) includes nine traits (organization, cohesion, style, data description, interpretation, development of ideas, sentence structure, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary and spelling) each consisting of six band levels ranging from four to nine (p.279). (See Appendix 3 for a replication of the DELNA rating scale and Appendix 4 for my analysis of the students’ texts using this scale).。

《QualitativeResearchMethods》教学大纲(本科)

《Qualitative Research Methods 》教学大纲一、课程地位与课程目标（一）课程地位The Business Qualitative Research module will introduce students to business, finance and organisational research methods. The course will cover qualitative research methods. The course provides a guide to understanding the tacit and explicit process whereby students are socialised into the field of business, finance and management research. It is a practical course informed by theory and real-life examples, which help students explore the philosophical debates and underlying business, finance and management research and considers how they relate to our understanding of knowledge and business practice. Students will be introduced to the importance to research to the business world, they will learn how to construct a research design and subsequently being able to choose between analytical techniques and different research tools and how to analyse qualitative data in order to provide a solution to a problem. This course will be taught in English and uses a participative approach to learning and teaching, which is designed to provide a positive student learning experience.（二）课程目标This module, like all modules at Anglia Ruskin, is taught on the basis of achieving intended learning outcomes. On successful completion of the module, the student will be expected to be able to demonstrate the following: LO 1. Demonstrate awareness of the different research stages, research design and respective methodologies relevant to the academic contextsLO 2. Explain the chosen research questions andbe able to provide rationale, and all relevant elements contributing and suitable to researching a business topicLO 3. Evaluate the literature relevant to their research aims in order to develop a conceptual framework and relevant methodsIntellectual, practical,and designsaffective and transferable LO 4. Act as an independent self-learner and work within a team skills by demonstrating the skills necessary to plan, organise,undertake and present as a presentationThe assessment is based on meeting these learning outcomes, shown explicitly in section 4, where the assessment task is linked to these learning outcomes.Knowledge and understanding二、课程目标达成的途径与方法课程目标达成的途径主要通过课堂教学，辅以课外作业的形式。

定性研究的meta--定性系统评价

定性研究的meta--定性系统评价展开全文什么是定性系统评价？关于定性研究，小编曾经写过很多与定性研究相关的小文章了，有兴趣了解的小伙伴可以通过我们公众号上查找文章，输入“定性”来查看。

定性研究是指通过观察法、个人访谈、焦点组讨论以及参与性研究等方法，或是分析文字或影音记录资料等方法获取资料，目的是从研究对象的角度去了解与解释如行为、观点、态度和经验等现象。

传统的定量研究的meta分析是广为大家熟悉的，定量研究的Meta分析的结果可能会提示干预措施是否有效，但却不能详细说明因果关系，不能解释为什么在一些情况下干预措施可能有效也可能无效。

而定性系统评价（定性证据合成）即针对研究问题，进行系统检索后纳入定性研究并对其客观评价、分析得出结论的研究类型。

定性系统评价能够从不同角度观察、分析问题，例如能够定性地探究某种干预措施的执行与持久程度的影响因素等问题，为决策者基于实际情况的决策提供可靠依据。

针对某种干预措施，定性系统评价也能够提供参与者对其接受程度和依从性证据，为定量研究提供前期理论基础，弥补单纯定量研究的不足。

因此，近几年来，人们开始将定性研究的证据纳入到干预性系统评价中。

因为定性研究的方法可能会解释定量研究中出现的一些意想不到的或反常的结果，及其存在的相关性。

系统地收集大量初步的定性研究结果，可能有助于产生更为广泛和普遍的理论。

通过关注研究对象的想法，可能会拓宽和加深研究者对现有的系统评价的效力的认识。

定性研究还有助于深入地了解干预措施成功与失败的原因。

因此，定性研究的系统评价将有助于干预措施的实施和干预方案的制订。

定性系统评价怎么做？完成一项定性研究的系统评价也有其规范的步骤，与定量研究的meta分析类似，主要包括8个步骤：①提出及构建问题；②制定纳入与排除标准；③文献检索；④文献筛选；⑤质量评价；⑥资料提取；⑦资料综合；⑧结果与讨论。

此外，Cochrane有专门的定性研究系统评价的详细介绍，且刚于今年5月初在Journal ofClinical Epidemiology 杂志上连载了6篇关于定性系统评价的方法学文章。

guidelines for quality management in projects

guidelines for quality managementin projectsIndeterminate endings in literature refer to narratives that leave the conclusion or resolution of a story ambiguous or open to interpretation. This technique is often used to engage readers and encourage them to reflect on the themes and messages presented in the text. One example of an indeterminate ending in American literature is the short story "The Lady with the Pet Dog" by Anton Chekhov. The story follows a man and a woman who meet and develop a connection while on vacation in Yalta. However, the ending is left ambiguous, with the reader unsure whether the man and woman will continue their relationship or if they will return to their separate lives. Another example is the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. The story follows the trial of a black man accused of raping a white woman in a small town in Alabama. The ending is ambiguous, with the reader unsure whether the protagonist, Atticus Finch, was successful in his defense of the defendant or if the jury reached the wrong verdict. In British literature, an example of an indeterminate ending is the novel "Wuthering Heights" by Emily Bronte. The story follows the relationships between the Earnshaw family and the Heathcliff family over several generations. The ending is ambiguous, with the reader unsure whether the protagonist, Heathcliff, has achieved revenge or if he has been consumed by his own hatred. Indeterminate endings can be frustrating for some readers, who may prefer a clear resolution to the story. However, they can also be powerful tools for exploring complex themes and forcing readers to consider the multiple perspectives and interpretations of a text. By leaving the ending open to interpretation, authors can encourage readers to engage with the story on a deeper level and to think more critically about the themes and messages presented.。

美国药典对正文修订的杂质检查新要求

美国药典对正文修订的杂质检查新要求第一篇：美国药典对正文修订的杂质检查新要求美国药典对正文修订的杂质检查新要求最近，美国药典对申报正文修订时的杂质检查有新的要求，非复杂有效成分、生物制品和生物技术制品、辅料、疫苗的正文修订申报指导原则（USP guideline for submitting requests for revision to the USP-NF）正在征求意见。

现将其中非复杂有效成分正文修订中的杂质部分简述如下：正文有关内容修订所用术语可参考文件ICH Q3A（R）。

其中指定杂质包括已知杂质（identified impurity）和未知杂质(unidentified impurity)。

原料药中的杂质原料药中的杂质检查，对指定杂质（specified impurities）应规定限量，并且对所有非指定杂质（unspecified impurities）的限量定为0.10%(The impurity test of a drug substance monograph is intended to limit all specified impurities, with a further limit of 0.10% for all unspecified impurities)。

新的正文要求用表1中的命名。

表1杂质检查杂质类型 Q3A杂质分类 USP传统检查新的USP检查有机起始原料普通杂质色谱纯度有关物质——的限度指定杂质副产物中间体降解产物指定和未指定杂质试剂，配位体，催化剂指定杂质无机试剂，配位体，催化剂无指定杂质重金属和其他残留金属重金属——的限度重金属无机盐炽灼残渣炽灼残渣残留溶剂有机挥发性杂质——的限度有机挥发性杂质USP正文原料药仅检查实际存在的杂质，不检查理论存在的。

如果采用不同的合成工艺，由此产生不同的杂质，则需要用不同的杂质检查方法，并在包装中标明可行的检查方法。

JBI评价工具病例报告

The Joanna Briggs InstituteIntroductionThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is an international, membership based research and development organization within the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Adelaide. The Institute specializes in promoting and supporting evidence-based healthcare by providing access to resources for professionals in nursing, midwifery, medicine, and allied health. With over 80 collaborating centres and entities, servicing over 90 countries, the Institute is a recognized global leader in evidence-based healthcare.JBI Systematic ReviewsThe core of evidence synthesis is the systematic review of literature of a particular intervention, condition or issue. The systematic review is essentially an analysis of the available literature (that is, evidence) and a judgment of the effectiveness or otherwise of a practice, involving a series of complex steps. The JBI takes a particular view on what counts as evidence and the methods utilized to synthesize those different types of evidence. In line with this broader view of evidence, the Institute has developed theories, methodologies and rigorous processes for the critical appraisal and synthesis of these diverse forms of evidence in order to aid in clinical decision-making in health care. There now exists JBI guidance for conducting reviews of effectiveness research, qualitative research, prevalence/incidence, etiology/risk, economic evaluations, text/opinion, diagnostic test accuracy, mixed-methods, umbrella reviews and scoping reviews. Further information regarding JBI systematic reviews can be found in the JBI Reviewer’s Manual on our website.JBI Critical Appraisal ToolsAll systematic reviews incorporate a process of critique or appraisal of the research evidence. The purpose of this appraisal is to assess the methodological quality of a study and to determine the extent to which a study has addressed the possibility of bias in its design, conduct and analysis. All papers selected for inclusion in the systematic review (that is –those that meet the inclusion criteria described in the protocol) need to be subjected to rigorous appraisal by two critical appraisers. The results of this appraisal can then be used to inform synthesis and interpretation of the results of the study. JBI Critical appraisal tools have been developed by the JBI and collaborators and approved by the JBI Scientific Committee following extensive peer review. Although designed for use in systematic reviews, JBI critical appraisal tools can also be used when creating Critically Appraised Topics (CAT), in journal clubs and as an educational tool.JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports Reviewer DateAuthor Year Record NumberYes No Unclear Notapplicable1.Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described? □□□□2.Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline? □□□□3.Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? □□□□4.Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? □□□□5.Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? □□□□6.Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described? □□□□7.Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated eventsidentified and described? □□□□8.Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? □□□□Overall appraisal: Include □Exclude □Seek further info □Comments (Including reason for exclusion)Explanation of case reports critical appraisalHow to cite:The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual: 2016 edition. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2016.Case Reports Critical Appraisal ToolAnswers: Yes, No, Unclear or Not/Applicable1.Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described?Does the case report clearly describe patient's age, sex, race, medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, previous treatments, past and current diagnostic test results, and medications? The setting and context may also be described.2.Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline?A good case report will clearly describe the history of the patient, their medical, family and psychosocial history including relevant genetic information, as well as relevant past interventions and their outcomes. (CARE Checklist 2013).3.Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described?The current clinical condition of the patient should be described in detail including the uniqueness of the condition/disease, symptoms, frequency and severity. The case report should also be able to present whether differential diagnoses was considered.4.Were diagnostic tests or methods and the results clearly described?A reader of the case report should be provided sufficient information to understand how the patient was assessed. It is important that all appropriate tests are ordered to confirm a diagnosis and therefore the case report should provide a clear description of various diagnostic tests used (whether a gold standard or alternative diagnostic tests). Photographs or illustrations of diagnostic procedures, radiographs, or treatment procedures are usually presented when appropriate to convey a clear message to readers.5.Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described?It is important to clearly describe treatment or intervention procedures as other clinicians will be reading the paper and therefore may enable clear understanding of the treatment protocol. The report should describe the treatment/intervention protocol in detail; for e.g. in pharmacological management of dental anxiety - the type of drug, route of administration, drug dosage and frequency, and any side effects.6.Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described?A good case report should clearly describe the clinical condition post-intervention in terms of the presence or lack thereof symptoms. The outcomes of management/treatment when presented as images or figures would help in conveying the information to the reader/clinician.7.Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described?With any treatment/intervention/drug, there are bound to be some adverse events and in some cases, they may be severe. It is important that adverse events are clearly documented and described, particularly a new or unique condition is being treated or when a new drug or treatment is used. In addition, unanticipated events, if any that may yield new or useful information should be identified and clearly described.8.Does the case report provide takeaway lessons?Case reports should summarize key lessons learned from a case in terms of the background of the condition/disease and clinical practice guidance for clinicians when presented with similar cases.References:Gagnier, J. J., Kienle, G., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Sox, H., & Riley, D. (2013). The CARE Guidelines: Consensus‐Based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development.?Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain,53(10), 1541-1547.。

调研计划英语学习方法

调研计划英语学习方法Title: English Language Learning MethodsIntroductionThe English language has become the global lingua franca, spoken and understood by millions of people around the world. As a result, the demand for English language proficiency has increased significantly, both for educational and professional purposes. With the advent of technology, there are now numerous methods and resources available for individuals to learn English. This research plan aims to explore and evaluate various English language learning methods, with the goal of identifying the most effective approaches for different learners.Research ObjectivesThe primary objective of this research plan is to examine and compare different English language learning methods, including traditional classroom-based learning, online resources, mobile applications, and immersive experiences. The specific research objectives are as follows:1. To review the current literature on English language learning methods and identify the most commonly used approaches.2. To assess the effectiveness of traditional classroom-based learning in comparison to online and mobile-based learning methods.3. To explore the benefits and limitations of immersive language learning experiences, such as studying abroad or participating in language exchange programs.4. To identify the factors that contribute to successful English language learning and proficiency.5. To provide recommendations for learners based on the findings of the research. Literature ReviewThe literature review will focus on the various English language learning methods and their effectiveness. The review will include studies that compare different methods, as well as those that examine the factors that contribute to successful language learning. The review will also discuss the impact of technology on language learning, and the benefits and limitations of immersive language learning experiences. The literature review will provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of English language learning methods and highlight the gaps in the existing research that this study aims to fill.MethodologyThe research will be conducted in three phases:Phase 1: Literature ReviewThe literature review will involve searching academic databases, such as JSTOR, PubMed, and Google Scholar, for relevant studies published in the last ten years. The search terms will include "English language learning", "language learning methods", "language acquisition", "immersive language learning", "online learning", and "mobile language learning". The literature review will also include books, reports, and other publications related to language learning methods.Phase 2: Data CollectionData will be collected through surveys and interviews with English language learners and educators. The surveys will be distributed to learners from different backgrounds and proficiency levels, and will assess their experiences with different language learning methods. The interviews will be conducted with language educators and experts in language acquisition to gather their insights on the effectiveness of different methods.Phase 3: Data Analysis and ReportingThe data collected from the surveys and interviews will be analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. The findings will be compiled into a research report, which will include a summary of the literature review, an analysis of the survey and interview data, and recommendations for English language learners based on the findings of the research. Ethical ConsiderationsThe research will follow ethical guidelines for human subjects research, including obtaining informed consent from all participants. The data collected will be kept confidential and used only for the purposes of the research. Participants will have the option to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.Anticipated ResultsIt is expected that the research will identify the most effective English language learning methods for different types of learners, as well as the factors that contribute to successful language acquisition. The findings will help learners make informed choices about their language learning journey and provide valuable insights for language educators and policymakers.ConclusionThis research plan aims to contribute to the existing knowledge on English language learning methods and provide practical recommendations for learners. By comparing different methods and assessing their effectiveness, the research will help individuals make informed choices about how to improve their English language proficiency.References[References will be added after the literature review phase is completed]。

JBI评价工具病例报告

Harvard(哈佛)格式标注参考文献

LoginSearch for:Print viewAdministratorsChicago Press, Chicago, IL.Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods , 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.A chapter from an edited bookSurname, A.N.(year of publication)"Title of chapter"in Editor surname, initials (Ed.)Title of BookEditionPublisherPlace of publicationChapter page numbers.ExampleBourdieu, P.(1977), "The forms of capital", in Richardson, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Researchfor the Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press, New York, NY, pp. 311-56.A translated workSurname, A.N.(year of publication)Title of BookEditionTranslated by Translator name, initialsPublisherPlace of publication.ExampleBourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, translated by Nice, R., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Journal articlesSurname, A.N.(year of publication)"Article title"Journal TitleVolume number, Issue number (if it exists)Article page numbers.ExampleBaron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), "The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.Guthrie, J. and Parker, L. (1997) "Editorial: Celebration, reflection and a future: a decade of AAAJ",Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , Vol. 10 No.1, pp. 3-8Electronic sourcesNB this refers to a source which is only available electronically, and not to sources which you may have accessed electronically but which are also available in print form, such as an article from an Emerald journal accessed via the Web.These follow the same convention of referencing as for printed sources, but include elements unique to the Web: Name(year of publication)"Article title"available at: full url(accessed date)For the last two elements, please try to remember the following conventions:When giving the url, "http://" should only be included if the address does not include "www"(accessed date) is important because of the lack of permanence of Internet sites.ExampleBetter Business Bureau (2001), "Third-party assurance boosts online purchasing", available at:/about/press/2001/101701.asp (accessed 7 January 2002).Hummingbird (2002), Hummingbird corporate website, available at: (accessed 2January 2002).Leeds Metropolitan University (2002), "Business Start-Up@Leeds Met", available at:/city/bus_startup.htmPitkow, J. and Kehoel, C. (1997), "GVU's WWW user surveys", available at: Ballantyne, D. (2000), "Dialogue and knowledge generation: two sides of the same coin in relationshipmarketing", paper presented at the 2nd WWW Conference on Relationship Marketing, November 1999-February 2000, Monash University and MCB University Press, available at:/services/conferen/nov99/rm/paper3.htmlAn electronic journal would be referenced as follows:Surname, A.N.(year of publication)"Article title"Journal TitleVolume number, Issue numberArticle page numbersAvailable at: url(accessed date)ExampleSwaminathan, V., Lepkoswka-White, E. and Rao, B.P. (1999), "Browsers or buyers in cyberspace? Aninvestigation of electronic factors influencing electronic exchange", Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, Vol. 5 No. 2, available at: www. / jcmc/vol5/ issue2/Conference papersSome papers may not be published in journals but may be delivered at a conference and then published as part of the proceedings of that conference, in which case, use one of the following styles as appropriate.ExampleLodi, E., Veseley, M. and Vigen, J. (2000), "Link managers for grey literature", New Frontiers in GreyLiterature, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Grey Literature, Washington, DC, October4-5, 1999, GreyNet, Amsterdam, pp. 116-34.Naude, P. and Holland, C. (1998), "Marketing in the information domain", in Halinen-Kaila, A. andNummela, N. (Eds), Interaction, Relationships and Networks: Visions for the Future, Proceedings of the14th Annual IMP Conference, pp. 245-62.Stauss, B. and Weinlich, B. (1995), "Process-oriented measurement of service quality by applying thesequential incident technique", paper presented at the Fifth Workshop on Quality Management inServices, EIASM, Tilburg.Strandvik, T. and Storbacka, K. (1996), "Managing relationship quality", paper presented at the QUIS5Quality in Services Conference, University of Karlstad, Karlstad.As you see, some of the above references give the date of the conference, others do not; if in doubt, follow the convention used by the conference.Government or commercial reportsParticularly when writing a case study, you may want to refer to company or government documents. In which case, the organization may become the author and the form of entry would be as follows:Organization name(year of publication)Title of reportPublisher and place of publication (may be same as author).ExampleApollo Enterprises (1993), Annual Report , p. 8.Ernst and Ernst (1978), Social Responsibility Disclosure: 1978 Survey, Ernst and Ernst, Cleveland, OH.Bank of England (2003), Quarterly Report on Small Business Statistics, Bank of England, London.Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) (2002), White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and Innovation, DTI,London.European Commission (1998), Fostering Entrepreneurship in Europe: Priorities for the Future, EuropeanCommission, Brussels.Yorkshire Forward (1999), Regional Economic Strategy, Yorkshire Forward, Leeds...Some guidelines to remember for all source typesIf all the above seems complicated, it's worth remembering that the Harvard system is actually quite logical. Bear in mind the following guidelines:The entry always begins with the author's surname, followed by initials, followed by the date in brackets.Authors' surnames and initials are always inverted, i.e. Other, A.N. (whether you are referring to the author of anarticle/chapter, or the editor of the work within which the work is found).If more than one entry by the same author, put in order of dates.Publications, whether book or journal titles, are always in italic, with significant words only capitalized. Make sure that the journal title is exactly the same, e.g. use of &/and.Excerpts from publications, i.e. book chapters, journal articles, always come in "quotes", with only the first word, proper names, and German nouns, capitalized.The name of the publisher is shown before the place of publication (as it would be in an address). Abbreviations for US states should be in short capitalized form, e.g. CA, MA, rather than Ca., Mass., and should be added as necessary.Electronic references follow the same conventions as printed ones, followed by "available at:" and the URL. Only retain "http://" if the address does NOT include www. Also, state the date when last accessed (accessed ...).Use commas to separate elements of the entry.。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

Guidelines for Qualitative Research Manuscripts1. Introduction1.1Describe the background and research question(s), including the study setting or context and the significance in terms of practice or policy1.2Link your research questions and/or specific aims to important social or health problems1.3 Briefly discuss the compatibility of your research questions with qualitative inquiry2. Literature review2.1Review recent research findings on the topic2.2Briefly discuss alternative theoretical perspectives (depending on relevance)2.3Note limitations in methods in addressing complexities or nuances of the problem2.4 Summarize both the strengths and limitations of previous studies3. MethodThe Method section of the manuscript should provide sufficient detail to fully inform readers of the processes and procedures used to carry out the research. This section is key to making the research process transparent to the reader, and should include the following sections:3.1 IRB StatementAll manuscripts reporting studies on human participants should include a statement regarding review and approval (or waiver) by the relevant institutional review board and/or research ethics committee. The informed consent procedures (i.e., oral or written) should be described in the Method section. In addition, describe the steps taken ensure participant confidentiality or anonymity, and the procedures used to ensure data safety. If pseudonyms are used to protect participants’ anonymity, be sure to note this protection. To protect the identities of study participants, avoid lengthy description of study sample or site, omitting details not essential to understanding the method or findings.3.2 MethodologyIdentify your research perspective or tradition (e.g., biography/narrative research, ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology). Briefly describe any theoretical lenses and sensitizing concepts used in the study. Explain the rationale for selecting this method of inquiry and how your methods meet your stated aims.3.3 Recruitment and SamplingProvide a detailed account of how participants were recruited and engaged for the research study. Describe the sampling method (e.g., purposive, convenience, snowball), which should flow from the guiding methodology. For example, if using phenomenology, a sample of eight to 10 participants might be appropriate, whereas a larger sample size would be expected with grounded theory.3.4 Data CollectionDescribe the data collection methods (e.g., interviewing, observation, document review) in sufficient detail to inform the reader about the potential richness of the data (e.g., more than one interview per participant, extended time spent doing observation). Include information regarding who collected the data and their training or background. Highlight data triangulation and note limitations related to using a single form of data collection at one time point. If unique or unusual methods are used for data collection, describe them in detail and explain the rationale for their selection.3.5 Analysis: Provide details of the steps taken in data analysis, and the process by which you arrived at the conclusions. Full description is important for the reader to get a sense of how themes were established and to strengthen the trustworthiness of the findings.3.5.1 If coding was used, be sure to state how many people were involved in co-coding. If more than one coder was used, explain how consistency – if viewed as important – was established between coders and how conflicts were resolved. In addition, describe the steps taken to increase the credibility, transferability, auditability, confirmability, or other goodness metrics related to the findings. These can include peer debriefing, audit trail, negative case analysis, prolonged engagement, triangulation of data, and member checking.3.5.2If used, the type of data analytic software should be mentioned as helping to organize and retrieve data.4. Results or Findings4.1The Results section should clearly present the themes abstracted from the analyses and —unless the study is purely descriptive — this presentation should move beyond the level of description-only. Authors can enhance the Results section by noting complexities within the results and, when possible, pointing out unexpected or surprising findings.4.2 Although the use of participant quotations enriches qualitative manuscripts, do not overuse quotations within the Results section. Link quotes to the findings and your interpretations.4.3 Including a graphic or schematic chart can be helpful in guiding the reader through the Results or Findings section and illustrating how the themes fit together. Color graphics can be included for articles posted online, and JSSWR can include a limited number of color graphics in each print issue.5. Discussion5.1Synthesize the findings and link them to the research questions5.2Note whether and how findings fit within or advance the literature5.3Describe the ways in which the findings contribute to the knowledge bases for practice or policy5.4Explain the implications of the findings for practice, research, and/or public policy5.5 Discuss the strengths and limitations of the methods in the context of your research perspective. For example, limitations related to sampling should be identified within a qualitative framework. The sample size or lack of depth in the data might limit transferability; however, a lack of generalizability is not a limitation in qualitative research。

Guidelines for Qualitative Research Manuscripts

Section 5 Qualitative Research

苏格兰 围术期预防的抗菌药物使用

CNAS-GL038：2019《临床免疫定性检验程序性能验证指南》

Qualitative Research Methods (Research Method)

CNAS-CL01-A001：2018《检测和校准实验室能力认可准则在微生物检测领域的应用说明》

Qualitative Research Methods定性分析英文课件

介绍一种社会研究方法英文

最新ICH指导原则

qualitative research 研究方法

《QualitativeResearchMethods》教学大纲(本科)

定性研究的meta--定性系统评价

guidelines for quality management in projects

美国药典对正文修订的杂质检查新要求

JBI评价工具 病例报告

调研计划英语学习方法

JBI评价工具 病例报告

Harvard(哈佛)格式标注参考文献

苏格兰围术期预防的抗菌药物使用

JBI评价工具病例报告

JBI评价工具病例报告