Running Head Quantitative research1Quantitative research3.docx

Running Head: Quantitative research 1
Quantitative research 3
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Student
University
School
Couse
Course code
Lecturer
Due date
Type of quantitative research conducted
The study was a longitudinal nature as information was
collected continuously over a period of time of time in regards
to the variables. The article by Johnson, (1977), was to be

conducted all through time without proper specification of what
the data collection was to be conducted and its end.
Variables under investigation and their measurement
The article seek to measure to justify the overall connection
between the term validity and how it is utilized in quantitative
research. The article reviews five types of validity namely
descriptive, interpretive, theoretical, internal and external
validity. In relation to the nature to the research study
conducted, the discussions conducted are descriptive in nature
and therefore measurement was largely based on predictions
acquired from data sources, phenomenon, information acquired
from investigators, perspectives acquired from theories,
respondent reviews and from discussions acquired from peer
reviewed articles. Critical self-reflections and critical
examinations of the negative studies that offer alternative
explanations to what the original findings portray is about.
Scientific merit and how and it can be improved
Research studies must have a certain quality in order to exhibit
the most relevant results attainable. Quality in research can be
used by organizations in the effort to alleviate the situation that
a particular study reveals and should the results be incorrect it
would lead to wastage in resources. Scientific merit therefore
ensures that all research conducted is reliable and can be use
with other sources for positive actions.
Efforts to enforce and improve scientific merit must firstly
include expert review that should begin all through from
development of the proposal all through to the final research.
The advisors must also have the required expertise to ensure
quality of the papers. The peer reviewers must also be selected
in accordance to clearly articulated criteria. The researchers can
thereby acquire the proper and reliable feedback based on the
rules and procedures.
It would also be critical to fairly assess the research papers
based on the properly defined processes. Moreover, it would be
important to point areas where the study reveals conflict of
interest. Consequently, the process of review must be in relation

to the need of the area being addressed with regards to the
amount of resources invested and the how complex the study
is(Canadian Diabetes Association, 2016).
Lastly, all through the research study, and ethical committee
should be paramount to properly and effectively institute the
review process. Properly dealing with issues would help ensure
confidence in the review and utilization of is data and other
properties.
References
Canadian Diabetes Association. (2016). Tackling Peer Review:
How to Improve Reviews and Minimize Abuse. Canadian
Journal of Diabetes, 40. Retrieved from
www.canadianjournalofdiabetes.com
Johnson, B. (1977). Examining the validity structure of
qualitative research. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246126534
HHS.gov
The Belmont Report
Office of the Secretary
Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human
Subjects of
Research
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomedical
and Behavioral Research
April 18, 1979

AGENCY: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
ACTION: Notice of Report for Public Comment.
SUMMARY: On July 12, 1974, the National Research Act (Pub.
L. 93-348) was signed into law, there-by
creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. One of the charges to the Commission was to identify
the basic ethical principles that should
underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research
involving human subjects and to develop
guidelines which should be followed to assure that such
research is conducted in accordance with those
principles. In carrying out the above, the Commission was
directed to consider: (i) the boundaries
between biomedical and behavioral research and the accepted
and routine practice of medicine, (ii) the
role of assessment of risk-benefit criteria in the determination
of the appropriateness of research involving
human subjects, (iii) appropriate guidelines for the selection of
human subjects for participation in such
research and (iv) the nature and definition of informed consent
in various research settings.
The Belmont Report attempts to summarize the basic ethical

principles identified by the Commission in
the course of its deliberations. It is the outgrowth of an
intensive four-day period of discussions that were
held in February 1976 at the Smithsonian Institution's Belmont
Conference Center supplemented by the
monthly deliberations of the Commission that were held over a
period of nearly four years. It is a
statement of basic ethical principles and guidelines that should
assist in resolving the ethical problems
that surround the conduct of research with human subjects. By
publishing the Report in the Federal
Register, and providing reprints upon request, the Secretary
intends that it may be made readily available
to scientists, members of Institutional Review Boards, and
Federal employees. The two-volume Appendix,
containing the lengthy reports of experts and specialists who
assisted the Commission in fulfilling this part
of its charge, is available as DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-
0013 and No. (OS) 78-0014, for sale by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402.
Office for Human Research Protections
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Unlike most other reports of the Commission, the Belmont
Report does not make specific
recommendations for administrative action by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare. Rather,
the Commission recommended that the Belmont Report be
adopted in its entirety, as a statement of the
Department's policy. The Department requests public comment
on this recommendation.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and
Behavioral Research
Members of the Commission
• Kenneth John Ryan, M.D., Chairman, Chief of Staff, Boston
Hospital for Women.
• Joseph V. Brady, Ph.D., Professor of Behavioral Biology,
Johns Hopkins University.
• Robert E. Cooke, M.D., President, Medical College of
Pennsylvania.
• Dorothy I. Height, President, National Council of Negro
Women, Inc.
• Albert R. Jonsen, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Bioethics,
University of California at San Francisco.
• Patricia King, J.D., Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown

University Law Center.
• Karen Lebacqz, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian
Ethics, Pacific School of Religion.
• *** David W. Louisell, J.D., Professor of Law, University of
California at Berkeley.
• Donald W. Seldin, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department
of Internal Medicine, University of Texas
at Dallas.
• ***Eliot Stellar, Ph.D., Provost of the University and
Professor of Physiological Psychology, University of
Pennsylvania.
• *** Robert H. Turtle, LL.B., Attorney, VomBaur, Coburn,
Simmons & Turtle, Washington, D.C.
• ***Deceased.
Table of Contents
• Ethical Principles and Guidelines for Research Involving
Human Subjects
• A. Boundaries Between Practice and Research
• B. Basic Ethical Principles
1. Respect for Persons
2. Beneficence

3. Justice
• C. Applications
1. Informed Consent
2. Assessment of Risk and Benefits
3. Selection of Subjects
Ethical Principles & Guidelines for Research Involving Human
Subjects
Scientific research has produced substantial social benefits. It
has also posed some troubling ethical
questions. Public attention was drawn to these questions by
reported abuses of human subjects in
biomedical experiments, especially during the Second World
War. During the Nuremberg War Crime
Trials, the Nuremberg code was drafted as a set of standards for
judging physicians and scientists who
had conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp
prisoners. This code became the prototype
of many later codes[1] intended to assure that research
involving human subjects would be carried out in
an ethical manner.
The codes consist of rules, some general, others specific, that

guide the investigators or the reviewers of
research in their work. Such rules often are inadequate to cover
complex situations; at times they come
into conflict, and they are frequently difficult to interpret or
apply. Broader ethical principles will provide a
basis on which specific rules may be formulated, criticized and
interpreted.
Three principles, or general prescriptive judgments, that are
relevant to research involving human subjects
are identified in this statement. Other principles may also be
relevant. These three are comprehensive,
however, and are stated at a level of generalization that should
assist scientists, subjects, reviewers and
interested citizens to understand the ethical issues inherent in
research involving human subjects. These
principles cannot always be applied so as to resolve beyond
dispute particular ethical problems. The
objective is to provide an analytical framework that will guide
the resolution of ethical problems arising
from research involving human subjects.
This statement consists of a distinction between research and
practice, a discussion of the three basic
ethical principles, and remarks about the application of these
principles.

[RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]
Part A: Boundaries Between Practice & Research
A. Boundaries Between Practice and Research
It is important to distinguish between biomedical and behavioral
research, on the one hand, and the
practice of accepted therapy on the other, in order to know what
activities ought to undergo review for the
protection of human subjects of research. The distinction
between research and practice is blurred partly
because both often occur together (as in research designed to
evaluate a therapy) and partly because
notable departures from standard practice are often called
"experimental" when the terms "experimental"
and "research" are not carefully defined.
For the most part, the term "practice" refers to interventions
that are designed solely to enhance the well-
being of an individual patient or client and that have a
reasonable expectation of success. The purpose of
medical or behavioral practice is to provide diagnosis,
preventive treatment or therapy to particular
individuals [2]. By contrast, the term "research' designates an

activity designed to test an hypothesis,
permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or
contribute to generalizable knowledge
(expressed, for example, in theories, principles, and statements
of relationships). Research is usually
described in a formal protocol that sets forth an objective and a
set of procedures designed to reach that
objective.
When a clinician departs in a significant way from standard or
accepted practice, the innovation does not,
in and of itself, constitute research. The fact that a procedure is
"experimental," in the sense of new,
untested or different, does not automatically place it in the
category of research. Radically new procedures
of this description should, however, be made the object of
formal research at an early stage in order to
determine whether they are safe and effective. Thus, it is the
responsibility of medical practice
committees, for example, to insist that a major innovation be
incorporated into a formal research project
[3].
Research and practice may be carried on together when research
is designed to evaluate the safety and

efficacy of a therapy. This need not cause any confusion
regarding whether or not the activity requires
review; the general rule is that if there is any element of
research in an activity, that activity should
undergo review for the protection of human subjects.
Part B: Basic Ethical Principles
B. Basic Ethical Principles
The expression "basic ethical principles" refers to those general
judgments that serve as a basic
justification for the many particular ethical prescriptions and
evaluations of human actions. Three basic
principles, among those generally accepted in our cultural
tradition, are particularly relevant to the ethics
of research involving human subjects: the principles of respect
of persons, beneficence and justice.
1. Respect for Persons. -- Respect for persons incorporates at
least two ethical convictions: first, that
individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second,
that persons with diminished autonomy
are entitled to protection. The principle of respect for persons
thus divides into two separate moral
requirements: the requirement to acknowledge autonomy and the

requirement to protect those with
diminished autonomy.
An autonomous person is an individual capable of deliberation
about personal goals and of acting under
the direction of such deliberation. To respect autonomy is to
give weight to autonomous persons'
considered opinions and choices while refraining from
obstructing their actions unless they are clearly
detrimental to others. To show lack of respect for an
autonomous agent is to repudiate that person's
considered judgments, to deny an individual the freedom to act
on those considered judgments, or to
withhold information necessary to make a considered judgment,
when there are no compelling reasons to
do so.
However, not every human being is capable of self-
determination. The capacity for self-determination
matures during an individual's life, and some individuals lose
this capacity wholly or in part because of
illness, mental disability, or circumstances that severely restrict
liberty. Respect for the immature and the
incapacitated may require protecting them as they mature or
while they are incapacitated.

Some persons are in need of extensive protection, even to the
point of excluding them from activities
which may harm them; other persons require little protection
beyond making sure they undertake activities
freely and with awareness of possible adverse consequence. The
extent of protection afforded should
depend upon the risk of harm and the likelihood of benefit. The
judgment that any individual lacks
autonomy should be periodically reevaluated and will vary in
different situations.
In most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for
persons demands that subjects enter into
the research voluntarily and with adequate information. In some
situations, however, application of the
principle is not obvious. The involvement of prisoners as
subjects of research provides an instructive
example. On the one hand, it would seem that the principle of
respect for persons requires that prisoners
not be deprived of the opportunity to volunteer for research. On
the other hand, under prison conditions
they may be subtly coerced or unduly influenced to engage in
research activities for which they would not
otherwise volunteer. Respect for persons would then dictate that
prisoners be protected. Whether to allow

prisoners to "volunteer" or to "protect" them presents a
dilemma. Respecting persons, in most hard cases,
is often a matter of balancing competing claims urged by the
principle of respect itself.
2. Beneficence. -- Persons are treated in an ethical manner not
only by respecting their decisions and
protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure
their well-being. Such treatment falls
under the principle of beneficence. The term "beneficence" is
often understood to cover acts of kindness
or charity that go beyond strict obligation. In this document,
beneficence is understood in a stronger
sense, as an obligation. Two general rules have been formulated
as complementary expressions of
beneficent actions in this sense: (1) do not harm and (2)
maximize possible benefits and minimize
possible harms.
The Hippocratic maxim "do no harm" has long been a
fundamental principle of medical ethics. Claude
Bernard extended it to the realm of research, saying that one
should not injure one person regardless of
the benefits that might come to others. However, even avoiding
harm requires learning what is harmful;

and, in the process of obtaining this information, persons may
be exposed to risk of harm. Further, the
Hippocratic Oath requires physicians to benefit their patients
"according to their best judgment." Learning
what will in fact benefit may require exposing persons to risk.
The problem posed by these imperatives is
to decide when it is justifiable to seek certain benefits despite
the risks involved, and when the benefits
should be foregone because of the risks.
The obligations of beneficence affect both individual
investigators and society at large, because they
extend both to particular research projects and to the entire
enterprise of research. In the case of
particular projects, investigators and members of their
institutions are obliged to give forethought to the
maximization of benefits and the reduction of risk that might
occur from the research investigation. In the
case of scientific research in general, members of the larger
society are obliged to recognize the longer
term benefits and risks that may result from the improvement of
knowledge and from the development of
novel medical, psychotherapeutic, and social procedures.
The principle of beneficence often occupies a well-defined

justifying role in many areas of research
involving human subjects. An example is found in research
involving children. Effective ways of treating
childhood diseases and fostering healthy development are
benefits that serve to justify research involving
children -- even when individual research subjects are not direct
beneficiaries. Research also makes it
possible to avoid the harm that may result from the application
of previously accepted routine practices
that on closer investigation turn out to be dangerous. But the
role of the principle of beneficence is not
always so unambiguous. A difficult ethical problem remains, for
example, about research that presents
more than minimal risk without immediate prospect of direct
benefit to the children involved. Some have
argued that such research is inadmissible, while others have
pointed out that this limit would rule out
much research promising great benefit to children in the future.
Here again, as with all hard cases, the
different claims covered by the principle of beneficence may
come into conflict and force difficult choices.
3. Justice. -- Who ought to receive the benefits of research and
bear its burdens? This is a question of
justice, in the sense of "fairness in distribution" or "what is

deserved." An injustice occurs when some
benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good
reason or when some burden is imposed
unduly. Another way of conceiving the principle of justice is
that equals ought to be treated equally.
However, this statement requires explication. Who is equal and
who is unequal? What considerations
justify departure from equal distribution? Almost all
commentators allow that distinctions based on
experience, age, deprivation, competence, merit and position do
sometimes constitute criteria justifying
differential treatment for certain purposes. It is necessary, then,
to explain in what respects people should
be treated equally. There are several widely accepted
formulations of just ways to distribute burdens and
benefits. Each formulation mentions some relevant property on
the basis of which burdens and benefits
should be distributed. These formulations are (1) to each person
an equal share, (2) to each person
according to individual need, (3) to each person according to
individual effort, (4) to each person
according to societal contribution, and (5) to each person
according to merit.

Questions of justice have long been associated with social
practices such as punishment, taxation and
political representation. Until recently these questions have not
generally been associated with scientific
research. However, they are foreshadowed even in the earliest
reflections on the ethics of research
involving human subjects. For example, during the 19th and
early 20th centuries the burdens of serving as
research subjects fell largely upon poor ward patients, while the
benefits of improved medical care flowed
primarily to private patients. Subsequently, the exploitation of
unwilling prisoners as research subjects in
Nazi concentration camps was condemned as a particularly
flagrant injustice. In this country, in the
1940's, the Tuskegee syphilis study used disadvantaged, rural
black men to study the untreated course of
a disease that is by no means confined to that population. These
subjects were deprived of demonstrably
effective treatment in order not to interrupt the project, long
after such treatment became generally
available.
Against this historical background, it can be seen how
conceptions of justice are relevant to research

involving human subjects. For example, the selection of
research subjects needs to be scrutinized in order
to determine whether some classes (e.g., welfare patients,
particular racial and ethnic minorities, or
persons confined to institutions) are being systematically
selected simply because of their easy
availability, their compromised position, or their
manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to
the problem being studied. Finally, whenever research
supported by public funds leads to the
development of therapeutic devices and procedures, justice
demands both that these not provide
advantages only to those who can afford them and that such
research should not unduly involve persons
from groups unlikely to be among the beneficiaries of
subsequent applications of the research.
Part C: Applications
C. Applications
Applications of the general principles to the conduct of research
leads to consideration of the following
requirements: informed consent, risk/benefit assessment, and
the selection of subjects of research.
1. Informed Consent. -- Respect for persons requires that
subjects, to the degree that they are capable,

be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not
happen to them. This opportunity is provided
when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.
While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned,
controversy prevails over the nature and
possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is
widespread agreement that the consent process
can be analyzed as containing three elements: information,
comprehension and voluntariness.
Information. Most codes of research establish specific items for
disclosure intended to assure that
subjects are given sufficient information. These items generally
include: the research procedure, their
purposes, risks and anticipated benefits, alternative procedures
(where therapy is involved), and a
statement offering the subject the opportunity to ask questions
and to withdraw at any time from the
research. Additional items have been proposed, including how
subjects are selected, the person
responsible for the research, etc.
However, a simple listing of items does not answer the question
of what the standard should be for

judging how much and what sort of information should be
provided. One standard frequently invoked in
medical practice, namely the information commonly provided
by practitioners in the field or in the locale, is
inadequate since research takes place precisely when a common
understanding does not exist. Another
standard, currently popular in malpractice law, requires the
practitioner to reveal the information that
reasonable persons would wish to know in order to make a
decision regarding their care. This, too, seems
insufficient since the research subject, being in essence a
volunteer, may wish to know considerably more
about risks gratuitously undertaken than do patients who deliver
themselves into the hand of a clinician for
needed care. It may be that a standard of "the reasonable
volunteer" should be proposed: the extent and
nature of information should be such that persons, knowing that
the procedure is neither necessary for
their care nor perhaps fully understood, can decide whether they
wish to participate in the furthering of
knowledge. Even when some direct benefit to them is
anticipated, the subjects should understand clearly
the range of risk and the voluntary nature of participation.

A special problem of consent arises where informing subjects of
some pertinent aspect of the research is
likely to impair the validity of the research. In many cases, it is
sufficient to indicate to subjects that they
are being invited to participate in research of which some
features will not be revealed until the research is
concluded. In all cases of research involving incomplete
disclosure, such research is justified only if it is
clear that (1) incomplete disclosure is truly necessary to
accomplish the goals of the research, (2) there
are no undisclosed risks to subjects that are more than minimal,
and (3) there is an adequate plan for
debriefing subjects, when appropriate, and for dissemination of
research results to them. Information
about risks should never be withheld for the purpose of eliciting
the cooperation of subjects, and truthful
answers should always be given to direct questions about the
research. Care should be taken to
distinguish cases in which disclosure would destroy or
invalidate the research from cases in which
disclosure would simply inconvenience the investigator.
Comprehension. The manner and context in which information
is conveyed is as important as the
information itself. For example, presenting information in a

disorganized and rapid fashion, allowing too
little time for consideration or curtailing opportunities for
questioning, all may adversely affect a subject's
ability to make an informed choice.
Because the subject's ability to understand is a function of
intelligence, rationality, maturity and language,
it is necessary to adapt the presentation of the information to
the subject's capacities. Investigators are
responsible for ascertaining that the subject has comprehended
the information. While there is always an
obligation to ascertain that the information about risk to
subjects is complete and adequately
comprehended, when the risks are more serious, that obligation
increases. On occasion, it may be
suitable to give some oral or written tests of comprehension.
Special provision may need to be made when comprehension is
severely limited -- for example, by
conditions of immaturity or mental disability. Each class of
subjects that one might consider as
incompetent (e.g., infants and young children, mentally disable
patients, the terminally ill and the
comatose) should be considered on its own terms. Even for

these persons, however, respect requires
giving them the opportunity to choose to the extent they are
able, whether or not to participate in research.
The objections of these subjects to involvement should be
honored, unless the research entails providing
them a therapy unavailable elsewhere. Respect for persons also
requires seeking the permission of other
parties in order to protect the subjects from harm. Such persons
are thus respected both by
acknowledging their own wishes and by the use of third parties
to protect them from harm.
The third parties chosen should be those who are most likely to
understand the incompetent subject's
situation and to act in that person's best interest. The person
authorized to act on behalf of the subject
should be given an opportunity to observe the research as it
proceeds in order to be able to withdraw the
subject from the research, if such action appears in the subject's
best interest.
Voluntariness. An agreement to participate in research
constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily
given. This element of informed consent requires conditions
free of coercion and undue influence.
Coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally

presented by one person to another in order
to obtain compliance. Undue influence, by contrast, occurs
through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted,
inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to
obtain compliance. Also, inducements that
would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if
the subject is especially vulnerable.
Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions
of authority or commanding influence --
especially where possible sanctions are involved -- urge a
course of action for a subject. A continuum of
such influencing factors exists, however, and it is impossible to
state precisely where justifiable
persuasion ends and undue influence begins. But undue
influence would include actions such as
manipulating a person's choice through the controlling influence
of a close relative and threatening to
withdraw health services to which an individual would
otherwise be entitled.
2. Assessment of Risks and Benefits. -- The assessment of risks
and benefits requires a careful arrayal
of relevant data, including, in some cases, alternative ways of
obtaining the benefits sought in the
research. Thus, the assessment presents both an opportunity and

a responsibility to gather systematic
and comprehensive information about proposed research. For
the investigator, it is a means to examine
whether the proposed research is properly designed. For a
review committee, it is a method for
determining whether the risks that will be presented to subjects
are justified. For prospective subjects, the
assessment will assist the determination whether or not to
participate.
The Nature and Scope of Risks and Benefits. The requirement
that research be justified on the basis of
a favorable risk/benefit assessment bears a close relation to the
principle of beneficence, just as the moral
requirement that informed consent be obtained is derived
primarily from the principle of respect for
persons. The term "risk" refers to a possibility that harm may
occur. However, when expressions such as
"small risk" or "high risk" are used, they usually refer (often
ambiguously) both to the chance (probability)
of experiencing a harm and the severity (magnitude) of the
envisioned harm.
The term "benefit" is used in the research context to refer to
something of positive value related to health

or welfare. Unlike, "risk," "benefit" is not a term that expresses
probabilities. Risk is properly contrasted to
probability of benefits, and benefits are properly contrasted
with harms rather than risks of harm.
Accordingly, so-called risk/benefit assessments are concerned
with the probabilities and magnitudes of
possible harm and anticipated benefits. Many kinds of possible
harms and benefits need to be taken into
account. There are, for example, risks of psychological harm,
physical harm, legal harm, social harm and
economic harm and the corresponding benefits. While the most
likely types of harms to research subjects
are those of psychological or physical pain or injury, other
possible kinds should not be overlooked.
Risks and benefits of research may affect the individual
subjects, the families of the individual subjects,
and society at large (or special groups of subjects in society).
Previous codes and Federal regulations
have required that risks to subjects be outweighed by the sum of
both the anticipated benefit to the
subject, if any, and the anticipated benefit to society in the form
of knowledge to be gained from the
research. In balancing these different elements, the risks and
benefits affecting the immediate research

subject will normally carry special weight. On the other hand,
interests other than those of the subject may
on some occasions be sufficient by themselves to justify the
risks involved in the research, so long as the
subjects' rights have been protected. Beneficence thus requires
that we protect against risk of harm to
subjects and also that we be concerned about the loss of the
substantial benefits that might be gained
from research.
The Systematic Assessment of Risks and Benefits. It is
commonly said that benefits and risks must be
"balanced" and shown to be "in a favorable ratio." The
metaphorical character of these terms draws
attention to the difficulty of making precise judgments. Only on
rare occasions will quantitative techniques
be available for the scrutiny of research protocols. However, the
idea of systematic, nonarbitrary analysis
of risks and benefits should be emulated insofar as possible.
This ideal requires those making decisions
about the justifiability of research to be thorough in the
accumulation and assessment of information about
all aspects of the research, and to consider alternatives
systematically. This procedure renders the

assessment of research more rigorous and precise, while making
communication between review board
members and investigators less subject to misinterpretation,
misinformation and conflicting judgments.
Thus, there should first be a determination of the validity of the
presuppositions of the research; then the
nature, probability and magnitude of risk should be
distinguished with as much clarity as possible. The
method of ascertaining risks should be explicit, especially
where there is no alternative to the use of such
vague categories as small or slight risk. It should also be
determined whether an investigator's estimates
of the probability of harm or benefits are reasonable, as judged
by known facts or other available studies.
Finally, assessment of the justifiability of research should
reflect at least the following considerations: (i)
Brutal or inhumane treatment of human subjects is never
morally justified. (ii) Risks should be reduced to
those necessary to achieve the research objective. It should be
determined whether it is in fact necessary
to use human subjects at all. Risk can perhaps never be entirely
eliminated, but it can often be reduced by
careful attention to alternative procedures. (iii) When research

involves significant risk of serious
impairment, review committees should be extraordinarily
insistent on the justification of the risk (looking
usually to the likelihood of benefit to the subject -- or, in some
rare cases, to the manifest voluntariness of
the participation). (iv) When vulnerable populations are
involved in research, the appropriateness of
involving them should itself be demonstrated. A number of
variables go into such judgments, including the
nature and degree of risk, the condition of the particular
population involved, and the nature and level of
the anticipated benefits. (v) Relevant risks and benefits must be
thoroughly arrayed in documents and
procedures used in the informed consent process.
3. Selection of Subjects. -- Just as the principle of respect for
persons finds expression in the
requirements for consent, and the principle of beneficence in
risk/benefit assessment, the principle of
justice gives rise to moral requirements that there be fair
procedures and outcomes in the selection of
research subjects.
Justice is relevant to the selection of subjects of research at two
levels: the social and the individual.

Individual justice in the selection of subjects would require that
researchers exhibit fairness: thus, they
should not offer potentially beneficial research only to some
patients who are in their favor or select only
"undesirable" persons for risky research. Social justice requires
that distinction be drawn between classes
of subjects that ought, and ought not, to participate in any
particular kind of research, based on the ability
of members of that class to bear burdens and on the
appropriateness of placing further burdens on
already burdened persons. Thus, it can be considered a matter of
social justice that there is an order of
preference in the selection of classes of subjects (e.g., adults
before children) and that some classes of
potential subjects (e.g., the institutionalized mentally infirm or
prisoners) may be involved as research
subjects, if at all, only on certain conditions.
Injustice may appear in the selection of subjects, even if
individual subjects are selected fairly by
investigators and treated fairly in the course of research. Thus
injustice arises from social, racial, sexual
and cultural biases institutionalized in society. Thus, even if
individual researchers are treating their
research subjects fairly, and even if IRBs are taking care to

assure that subjects are selected fairly within
a particular institution, unjust social patterns may nevertheless
appear in the overall distribution of the
burdens and benefits of research. Although individual
institutions or investigators may not be able to
resolve a problem that is pervasive in their social setting, they
can consider distributive justice in selecting
research subjects.
Some populations, especially institutionalized ones, are already
burdened in many ways by their infirmities
and environments. When research is proposed that involves
risks and does not include a therapeutic
component, other less burdened classes of persons should be
called upon first to accept these risks of
research, except where the research is directly related to the
specific conditions of the class involved.
Also, even though public funds for research may often flow in
the same directions as public funds for
health care, it seems unfair that populations dependent on
public health care constitute a pool of preferred
research subjects if more advantaged populations are likely to
be the recipients of the benefits.

One special instance of injustice results from the involvement
of vulnerable subjects. Certain groups, such
as racial minorities, the economically disadvantaged, the very
sick, and the institutionalized may
continually be sought as research subjects, owing to their ready
availability in settings where research is
conducted. Given their dependent status and their frequently
compromised capacity for free consent, they
should be protected against the danger of being involved in
research solely for administrative
convenience, or because they are easy to manipulate as a result
of their illness or socioeconomic
condition.
[1] Since 1945, various codes for the proper and responsible
conduct of human experimentation in
medical research have been adopted by different organizations.
The best known of these codes are the
Nuremberg Code of 1947, the Helsinki Declaration of 1964
(revised in 1975), and the 1971 Guidelines
(codified into Federal Regulations in 1974) issued by the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare Codes for the conduct of social and behavioral research
have also been adopted, the best known
being that of the American Psychological Association,

published in 1973.
[2] Although practice usually involves interventions designed
solely to enhance the well-being of a
particular individual, interventions are sometimes applied to
one individual for the enhancement of the
well-being of another (e.g., blood donation, skin grafts, organ
transplants) or an intervention may have the
dual purpose of enhancing the well-being of a particular
individual, and, at the same time, providing some
benefit to others (e.g., vaccination, which protects both the
person who is vaccinated and society
generally). The fact that some forms of practice have elements
other than immediate benefit to the
individual receiving an intervention, however, should not
confuse the general distinction between research
and practice. Even when a procedure applied in practice may
benefit some other person, it remains an
intervention designed to enhance the well-being of a particular
individual or groups of individuals; thus, it
is practice and need not be reviewed as research.
[3] Because the problems related to social experimentation may
differ substantially from those of
biomedical and behavioral research, the Commission
specifically declines to make any policy

determination regarding such research at this time. Rather, the
Commission believes that the problem
ought to be addressed by one of its successor bodies.
Content created by Office for Human Research Protections
Content last reviewed on March 15, 2016
1497
Systematic review of theories: a tool to evaluate and
analyze selected studies
Soares CB, Yonekura T
Rev Esc Enferm USP
2011; 45(6):1497-1503
www.ee.usp.br/reeusp/
Systematic review of theories:
a tool to evaluate and analyze
selected studies
R
E
P
O
R

T
S O
N E
X
P
E
R
IE
N
C
E
REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA DE TEORIAS: UMA
FERRAMENTA PARA AVALIAÇÃO E
ANÁLISE DE TRABALHOS SELECIONADOS
REVISIÓN SISTEMÁTICA DE TEORÍAS: UNA
HERRAMIENTA PARA EVALUACIÓN Y
ANÁLISIS DE TRABAJOS SELECCIONADOS
1 Nurse. Associate Professor of the Collective Nursing
Department, School of Nursing, University of São Paulo. São
Paulo, SP, Brazil. [email protected]
2 Nurse. Student of the Masters in Nursing Program, School of
Nursing, University of São Paulo. Fellow of the State of São
Paulo research Foundation. São
Paulo, SP, Brazil. [email protected]
Received: 06/23/2010
Approved: 04/11/2011
Português / Inglês

www.scielo.br/reeusp
RESUMO
O objeti vo deste estudo é relatar a expe-
riência de construção e uti lização de um
instrumento de captação e análise dos re-
ferenciais teórico-metodológicos de estu-
dos, em revisões sistemáti cas da literatura.
O que se pretende é que investi gadores
disponham de um instrumento adequado
para avaliar os estudos que expõem seus
fundamentos teóricos, e que os profi ssio-
nais de saúde tenham acesso a explicações
teóricas para os resultados de estudos e
suas aplicações nas práti cas em saúde.
Desarti culação entre teoria e práti ca pode
levar à falta de moti vação no local de tra-
balho e a práti cas de reprodução de pro-
cedimentos sem consciência dos conceitos
subjacentes que embasam a interpretação
de um fenômeno saúde-doença. Chama-se
a atenção dos pesquisadores no senti do
de realizar análises sobre os fundamentos
teóricos dos fenômenos saúde-doença em
estudo e propõe-se questões relacionadas
aos critérios de inclusão, apreciação críti ca
e extração de dados a serem abordadas em
instrumentos.
DESCRITORES
Revisão
Medidas, métodos e teorias
Avaliação de Programas e Instrumentos de
Pesquisa
Estudos de validação

ABSTRACT
The objecti ve of this study is to report on
the experience of constructi ng and using
an instrument to collect and analyze theo-
reti cal-methodological references of stud-
ies, in systemati c literature reviews. The
goal is for researchers to have available an
instrument that is appropriate for evaluat-
ing the studies that present their theoreti -
cal foundati ons, and for health profession-
als to have access to the theoreti cal expla-
nati ons for study results and their applica-
ti ons in the practi ce of health care. The dis-
sociati on of theory from practi ce may lead
to a lack of moti vati on at the work site and
practi ces of repeati ng procedures without
any awareness of the underlying concepts
that base the interpretati on of a health-
disease phenomenon. Therefore we call
on researchers to conduct reviews on the
theoreti cal foundati ons of certain health-
disease phenomena and we propose ques-
ti ons related to the inclusion criteria, criti -
cal appreciati on and data extracti on to be
addressed in instruments.
DESCRIPTORS
Review
Measurements, methods and theories
Evaluati on of Research Programs and Tools
Validati on studies
RESUMEN
Este trabajo apunta a relatar la experiencia
de construcción y uti lización de un instru-
mento de captación y análisis de referen-

ciales teórico-metodológicos de estudios,
en revisiones sistemáti cas de literatura. Se
pretende que los investi gadores dispongan
de un instrumento adecuado para evaluar
los estudios que exponen sus fundamentos
teóricos y que los profesionales de salud
tengan acceso a aplicaciones teóricas para
los resultados de estudios y sus aplicacio-
nes en prácti cas de salud. La desarti cula-
ción entre teoría y prácti ca puede llevar a
falta de moti vación en el lugar de trabajo,
para prácti cas de reproducción de procedi-
mientos sin conciencia del concepto subya-
cente que da base a la interpretación del
fenómeno salud-enfermedad. Se llama la
atención de los investi gadores en senti do
de realizar análisis de fundamentos teóri-
cos del fenómeno salud-enfermedad en
estudio y se proponen cuesti ones relacio-
nadas al criterio de inclusión, apreciación
críti ca y extracción de datos a ser aborda-
dos en instrumentos.
DESCRIPTORES
Revisión
Mediciones, métodos y teorías
Evaluación de Programas e Instrumentos
de Investi gación
Estúdios de validación
Cassia Baldini Soares1, Tatiana Yonekura2
1498
Rev Esc Enferm USP

2011; 45(6):1497-1503
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies in the healthcare fi eld, parti cularly
those from the countries in the center of capitalism, face
strong obstacles in reaching healthcare providers in other
countries in order for these studies to be immediately
used. Access to knowledge follows the same standards of
unequal access to tangible and intangible assets produced
by human society.
Such acknowledgement, even if with diff erent the-
oreti cal-practi cal nuances, is generalized. Internati onal
authoriti es in charge of the world’s social progress worry
about this issue because, aft er all, it is related to the very
development of mankind(1).
MEDLINE aptly illustrates this point. Produced by the
U.S. Nati onal Library of Medicine, it is one of the main on-
line internati onal databases accessible in Lati n American
and the Caribbean and available through the Lati n-Amer-
ican and the Caribbean Center of Informati on in Health
Sciences, also known by its original name
- Biblioteca Regional de Medicina (BIREME)
– a specialized center of the OPAS/OMS ori-
ented towards technical cooperati on in sci-
enti fi c health informati on.
Consider the fact that the 4800 maga-

zines indexed in the MEDLINE database are
mainly publicati ons from countries located
in the northern hemisphere and from Aus-
tralia, 3200 of which are published in Eng-
lish-speaking countries. Of those, 90% are
published in North America or Western Eu-
rope (44% from the USA). The magazines of
the so-called developing countries account
for just 9% of the ti tles indexed(2).
In the past several years it has been ob-
served that there has been an increase in
the scienti fi c producti on of countries outside the United
States/European community/Japan circuit, which seems
to signal more investi gati ve availability. However, this has
not happened without a price(3).
Although a signifi cant part of the scienti fi c producti on
takes the format of academic merchandise(3), here we are
assuming that a part of the so-called scienti fi c communi-
ty(4) creates literature reviews for the purpose of improv-
ing access to scienti fi c producti on.
In the area of health they have become more and
more frequent, consti tuti ng a potent tool to gather and
analyze comprehensively and methodically the results of
research studies coming from several conti nents. The pur-
pose of a summary with the best fi ndings is to establish
recommendati ons to enable healthcare providers and the
populati on in general to have access to knowledge that
can be quickly and soundly used in and/or requested from
healthcare services.
Comprehensive and ti me-unlimited literature reviews
are currently called systemati c reviews and are not exclusive
to the health fi eld. They are able to gather the best outcomes

from the research available regarding a parti cular subject or
topic. Usually the objecti ve of a systemati c review is to an-
swer a questi on, and to do that it uses objecti ve, clear and
transparent methodological procedures to fi nd, evaluate and
summarize those research fi ndings, using a pre-designed in-
strument to handle each one of those phases.
Thus, a number of research centers have been formed
dedicated to sti mulati ng and monitoring systemati c litera-
ture reviews. Among the main centers, the following de-
serve menti on: The Cochrane Collaborati on, The Joanna
Briggs Insti tute, The Campbell Collaborati on, Centre for
Reviews and Disseminati on, EPPI Centre, NICE - Nati onal
Insti tute for Health and Clinical Excellence, SCIE - Social
Care Insti tute for Excellence, Criti cal Appraisal Skills Pro-
gramme (CASP) and many others.
By no means are we suggesti ng taking systemati c reviews
and evidence-based medicine and/or practi ce
– one of the more contemporarily stressed
uses – as a practi ce deserving merit per se.
Health is an att ribute of life in society and
does not equate with evidence; in additi on,
systemati c reviews, even those conducted in
centers whose strictness is acknowledged, can
fail depending on the methodology used (5):
The instruments usually indicated for
review-dedicated centers and used in the
analyses of systemati c reviews conducted by
scienti sts in the health arena have proven to
be adequate in capturing the results of qual-
itati ve and quanti tati ve research projects in
order to submit them to meta-analyses and/
or meta-syntheses. The general objecti ve of
that type of work is to produce guidelines

for acti ons in healthcare services.
The term meta-analysis expresses the analyti cal syn-
thesis of research studies that use quanti tati ve methods
to capture the reality exactly because its objecti ve is to
combine stati sti cally the gathered studies’ results regard-
ing a phenomenon of interest(6).
The term meta-synthesis refers to the analyti cal analysis
of a study’s results using qualitati ve methods to capture the
empirical objecti ve. Its origin is in the educati on fi eld, which
seems to have initi ally used meta-ethnographic techniques
to summarize huge sets of data in educati onal reports. It was
followed by the sociology fi eld, which diversifi ed even more
the objecti ves of the synthesizing process, including meta-
theory and meta-method, among others. In the healthcare
area, nursing is the profession that, drinking from that pri-
mary source, more oft en uses meta-synthesis(7).
We have to highlight that integrati ve reviews, which
have been part of the body of nursing investi gati ons,
consti tute a method of systemati c review among the tra-
Comprehensive
and time-unlimited
literature reviews
are currently called
systematic reviews and
are not exclusive to
the health fi eld. They
are able to gather the
best outcomes from
the research available

regarding a particular
subject or topic.
1499
Rev Esc Enferm USP
2011; 45(6):1497-1503
diti onal narrati ve reviews. Thus, they have the quality of
being quite comprehensive because they can encompass
quanti tati ve and qualitati ve studies, analysis of theories
and methods and even empirical research results, and
so allow a more thorough approach to the phenomenon
of interest. Their objecti ve is to provide completeness to
the theme because it is interesti ng to encompass virtually
everything that has been studied about a subject. Once
they enable reaching more complex objecti ves, with more
amplitude, the synthesis obtained is able to contribute to
overcoming problems related to healthcare(8).
It is publicly known, at least by investi gators, that much
earlier and beyond this concern, historically there have
been other interests when a literature review is conduct-
ed, the most common and the oldest being, in any area of
science , the goal of learning state-of-the-art facts about a
certain subject. It is the state-of-the-art fact about the phe-
nomenon of interest that shapes the research’s questi on
and, in turn, defi nes more precisely the objecti ves of the

studies(9). Thus, it is an essenti al phase of every research
study either to learn the results of previously conducted
studies on the subject under considerati on or to learn the
theoreti cal references used when the subject studied is
based on one or more approaches(10). Similarly, a review of-
fers the possibility of advancing the elaborati on of theories
and also guiding politi cal and programmati c decisions(11).
Traditi onally, scienti sts conduct what has become
known as a narrati ve review of the literature. Although
there are criti cisms regarding the subjecti ve nature of this
type of review, investi gators in the area of human behav-
ior, for instance, draw att enti on to the importance of nar-
rati ve reviews; they have a diff erent nature from that of
a systemati c review and one has to decide on one or the
other by judging the potenti al of each one to meet the
objecti ves proposed by the research(11).
According to our experience, narrati ve reviews have
allowed advancements in theorizing on several health-
care practi ces, such as educati onal practi ces related to
drugs and damage control and educati onal practi ces in
healthcare provided by nurses. However, this type of re-
view does not meet the excellence criteria determined by
review centers. Therefore, it is important to add to the
scope of systemati c reviews, in the form of practi cal in-
struments, the capacity of discussing on the theoreti cal
aspects that ground research, which are best presented
by narrati ve reviews.
The objecti ves of this study are to discuss the impor-
tance of including theories and theoreti cal models in the
scope of systemati c reviews and to propose instruments
able to capture theoreti cal and methodological references
of studies when a researcher is performing a systemati c
review of a subject.

The purpose of this study is that investi gators have an ad-
equate instrument to collect and evaluate studies proposing
theoreti cal foundati ons in a systemati c review and, fi nally,
that healthcare providers have access to theoreti cal explana-
ti ons for studies’ results when preparing manuals, protocols
and other methods of guidance in healthcare services.
INCLUSION OF THEORIES AND
THEORETICAL MODELS IN
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS:
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
The epistemological debate on scienti fi c investi ga-
ti on has ethical-politi cal and theoreti cal-methodological
dimensions. At the ethical-politi cal level we can say that
there is a certain perversion in the university’s role as a
privileged center of research. It is more and more leaving
behind the role of being a center of criti cism and creati vity
targeted towards the general common good to becoming
an insti tuti on that meets private interests.
The university — and the research done therein — has
moved towards meeting the market’s needs, leaving aside
its role of a social institution at the service of the public in-
terests that fi nance it, stimulating an individualistic stance
as to research and academic career, dissociating them
progressively from an humanizing project purposed to ar-
ticulate science with a social transformation project(9).
According to the dicti onary of philosophy, the scien-
ti fi c defi niti on of theory is as follows:
3rd: By opposition to vulgar knowledge: what constitutes
the object of a methodical conception, systematically orga-

nized and dependent, consequently, as to its format, from
certain scientifi c decisions and conventions that do not be-
long to common sense(12).
This third entry can be complemented with the fi ft h,
which expresses a more general sense of theory:
5th: By opposition to science’s detail: a broad synthesis that
proposes to explain a large number of facts considered, as
hypothesis, probable by most scientists at a certain time:
the atomic theory; the cellular theory. The time of personal
doctrines and systems has passed and, little by little, they
have been replaced by theories that represent the current
status of the science, and they give to this point of view the
result of everyone’s efforts. Cl. Bernard, Introd, à l’et. De la
méd. exp, III pare, cap.IV, §4(12).
It is also worthy for us to understand the meaning of
the theory within the ambit of scienti fi c knowledge as de-
noted by the following the entries:
A theory is a hypothesis verifi ed after being submitted to
the control of the mind and experimental criticism... But for
a theory to remain valid it should always modify itself ac-
cording to scientifi c progresses and be constantly submit-
ted to verifi cation and criticism according to the new facts
coming up. If we considered a theory perfect and refrained
from verifying it through scientifi c experience, it would be-
come a doctrine (Cl. Bernard, ibid., p. 325)(12).
1500
Rev Esc Enferm USP
2011; 45(6):1497-1503

The scienti fi c community and, in a way, the whole so-
ciety in general acknowledge that the support of theories
used in scienti fi c investi gati ons is infl uenced by values of
a non-epistemic nature. From the philosophy fi eld come
concerns regarding how those values can alter the types
of data scienti sts collect from a certain area of knowledge,
someti mes transforming apparently irrelevant results into
crucial evidence. Consequently, non-epistemic values as-
sociated with a scienti fi c fi nding may infl uence the evalu-
ati on of theories, which att ributes to scienti sts the task
of refl ecti ng on how to deal with those values. Large fi -
nances for investi gati ons come from private organizati ons
interested in a research’s results. Pharmaceuti cal compa-
nies, for instance, in 2002 pledged to research more than
the enti re budget of the Nati onal Insti tute of Health (NIH),
i.e., US $24 billion in just that year. Thus, increasing eff orts
are required to refl ect on both ethical aspects and epis-
temic unraveling arising from fi nances, which are more
and more privati zed, for scienti fi c investi gati ons(13).
As can be observed, the ethical-politi cal dimension is
irrefutably interwoven with the theoreti cal-practi cal as-
pect. Thus, a researcher should, based on his ethical-polit-
ical commitment to constructi ng knowledge, structure his
research strictly upon theoreti cal-methodological bases
on which science has been historically established. This
requires deep knowledge of the theories composing the
hard core of his area of study and relates it to the catego-
ries, concepts and parti cular noti ons of the object being
explored in the study (9).

A systemati c review of how oft en theories are used in
the design of guidance manuals for clinical practi ces and
in the defi niti on of strategies to implement interventi ons
showed that it is necessary that papers bett er clarify the
use of the theory founding the interventi on practi ces be-
ing implemented, and that researchers develop more
clearly the logic of how the theory proposed operates in
the study at hand. Texts regarding studies based on theo-
ries should express those theories clearly, including quot-
ing the original literature of the theory being used. Ad-
diti onally, there should be clarity regarding why and how
a theory is adequate to explain the practi ce being imple-
mented, thus justi fying the interventi on proposed(14).
A nursing research study att empted to identi fy the
theories, theoreti cal tables and conceptual models used
in studies pertaining to stopping smoking. The authors
emphasized the importance of stati ng the theory to in-
form how and why things work and how a variable can be
related to another. We would like to stress that research
results that are clearly based on a theory can produce im-
possible soluti ons when fi ndings are disconnected from
the theories formalized by science. The authors indicate
that subsequent research on that subject should be bett er
arti culated with the theories. This is a fundamental con-
diti on for implementi ng policies in that area because for-
mulators of policies need to access consistent syntheses
in order to have healthcare practi ces implemented. The
theories arti culated with the fi ndings tend to speak on be-
half of fi ndings consistent with the phenomenon studied
and, in this way, can be understood and interpreted by
the managers of the healthcare policies (15).
A review on the use of theories in an important Lati n

American public health magazine revealed that references
to theories are infrequent in publicati ons; just a few pa-
pers menti on a theory or a theoreti cal model on which
authors base their research to explain the phenomenon
under investi gati on(16).
IMPLICATIONS IN HEALTHCARE
PRACTICES
Many observati ons have been made about the in-
creasing disarti culati on between theory and practi ce in
the qualifi cati on of healthcare providers and in healthcare
services. Studies we have conducted evidenced that at
least in the qualifi cati on of nurses, said disarti culati on can
be found when healthcare(17) and collecti ve healthcare(18)
educati on is provided where, similar to what happens in
other areas, the teaching of procedures takes precedence
over explaining the theory embedded in those procedures
and the theory, oft en enough, simply disappears.
The unilateral approach present in concepti ons that
excessively emphasize practi ce and leave aside the theory
is stressed here (19):
…human practice, included here the production of knowl-
edge, always encompasses a relationship between the
unique and private and the universal, which is a histori-
cal phenomenon once the subjective and objective human
properties involved therein result from broad and complex
relations between man and nature. When man transforms
nature, he is transformed and develops skills, creates
needs, which makes signifi cantly complex his vital activity,
i.e., he constitutes himself as a praxical being. It is in the
articulating unit between idea and action, or between theo-
ry and practice that human historicity takes place, concret-
ized in the movement of constitution of the social reality (19).

The authors endorse that for praxis to have mean-
ing and be creati ve instead of just repeti ti ve, theory and
practi ce have to be arti culated.
Using as image the plunging required in practice, we be-
lieve that an individual immersed in the immediate reality,
without the support of concepts summarizing the historical
experience of the human beings, is at risk of drowning in a
multitude of chaotic information or, in the best scenario, to
make slow and insignifi cant advances produced by unpro-
ductive splashing, like the one who has not learned how to
swim and has been thrown into the water(19).
Disarti culati on between theory and practi ce may lead
to lack of moti vati on in the work place, to the reproduc-
ti on of procedures with a lack of awareness of the under-
lying concepts founding the interpretati on of a health-
disease phenomenon, and consequently to frustrati on
1501
Rev Esc Enferm USP
2011; 45(6):1497-1503
because no soluti ons are produced with those practi ces,
which would only be possible through idea-acti on and
acti on-idea refl ecti ons.

The process of producti on in healthcare is part of the
service area, the third sector in capitalist producti on. Like
the other producti on processes, it uses Fordist/Taylorist,
and more recently, Toyoti st methods to organize work,
which restates the theoreti cal-practi cal disarti culati on
and increasingly establishes the reiterati ve praxis. A re-
cent study with nurses who work in primary healthcare
units promotes the assistance model where the axle guid-
ing the work is the planning of results, oriented towards
rati onalizati on instead of towards refl ecti ng on the work-
ing process, which signifi cantly wears out workers and
produces endless repeti ti ons of acti viti es without allowing
ti me and space to enable problem solving and advance-
ments in the working processes(20).
That fi nding, among other classic ones arising from the
analysis of the irremediable work division in the process of
healthcare producti on(21), also hegemonic in the public ar-
ea(22), leads to huge dissati sfacti on in the healthcare work in
nursing. Thus, here we advocate that it is possible to over-
come this alienati on by qualifying and improving subjects
so that they dominate the object, purpose and instruments
in their work and by having them organize the work in ways
that share the knowledge required for a creati ve praxis.
For Gramsci, we cannot prepare individuals for the more
and more complex modern activities – with which science
is so intimately interwoven – without holding as basis a
general formative theoretical-practical and political culture.
This preparation can qualify professionals able to reach
the understanding about their insertion and their work with-
in the society, able to work with technical knowledge, to
incorporate the social issues and assume ethical stances
capable to meet the specifi c needs of the social reality
where they will perform(22).

This is not possible without theoretical-practical
articulation!
INSTRUMENTS PROPOSED
Due to the proposal discussed above, which draws the
att enti on of researchers in the sense of conducti ng analy-
ses on the theoreti cal foundati ons of the health-disease
phenomenon being studied, we propose that reviews be
conducted which will be able to evidence the theories
used in investi gati ons, showing their arti culati on with the
methodology and operati onal aspects. That assessment
will certainly enable the feedback required so that values
related to the necessary theoreti cal-practi cal arti culati on
concreti ze new ways of producti on and/or divulging of
knowledge, clearly stati ng their theoreti cal contents and
their appropriateness to the characterizati on of the object
being studied.
Therefore, and considering as a starti ng point the sys-
temati c review instruments made available by the JBI, we
propose the following instruments related to initi al assess-
ment of the inclusion criteria targeti ng selecti ng studies
within the ambit of review which describe the theory or
theoreti cal model (Figure 1), criti cal assessment to evalu-
ate the study and check methodological criteria (Figure 2),
and data extracti on aiming at describing the study’s char-
acteristi cs to ease data analysis (Figure 3).
Figure 1 – Instrument for initial assessment of the inclusion
crite-
ria. Adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute – São Paulo –
2010
Figure 2 – Instrument for critical assessment. Adapted from the
Joanna Briggs Institute – São Paulo – 2010

1502
Rev Esc Enferm USP
2011; 45(6):1497-1503
Figure 3 – Instrument to extract data. Adapted from the Joanna
Briggs Institute – São Paulo – 2010
Based on the initial assessment instrument (Figure
1), which checks if the study meets the inclusion cri-
teria or not, it is possible to verify if a theory or theo-
retical model was described in the study. According to
our experience so far, we attempted to certify that the
research would at least refer to the theoretical frame-
works already used. As for the instrument that performs
a critical analysis of the selected studies (Figure 2), it
has helped us to assess the components (categories,
concepts and notions) of the theories used to sound
the studies, as well as to analyze the extent to which
the addressed theory is critically evaluated in terms of
the possible empirical outcomes of the studies. There-
fore, the strengths and weaknesses of the theories are
observed in order to explain the results. The data col-
lection instrument (Figure 3) aims to extract from the
text any evidence of the analysis we performed on the
theoretical components of the reviewed studies.

CONCLUSION
A work instrument should not be so fundamental that
it could ease closed processes where the intenti onality of
a creati ve work disappeared and prevented more produc-
ti ve results from being achieved based on an organiza-
ti on of the work as a serial producti on line, as seems to
happen with academic papers – where expressions such
as high producti vity and/or consumpti on of arti cles wit-
ness this trend. The academic work, as much as any other
social praxis, should not and cannot allow this degree of
alienati on if it makes worker scienti sts mere reproducers
of investi gati ve procedures.
An investi gator is an acti ve worker, politi cally placed
related to the object being studied, able to make choices
related to theoreti cal references and methodological pro-
cedures capable of expressing the object bett er.
However, access to the technologies available in the
society used in the proper place, i.e. as a means to reach
purposes previously intended by the worker, is an impor-
tant element in the constructi on of knowledge.
Therefore, we believe that in a systemati c review the
instruments should easily identi fy, analyze, describe and
systemati ze data and, to a certain point, indicate a trend
of what is being valued by the scienti fi c community. If the
instruments available included a proper epistemological
dimension of the academic work, investi gators would be
helped in their work of constructi ng knowledge.
Our experience using the instruments proposed here-
in has shown several potenti aliti es: by verifying, analyz-
ing, and collecti ng the theoreti cal elements of the stud-
ies, it was possible to present to researchers and general

health care workers, in a clear and systemati c manner, the
advancements and limitati ons of health care studies and
practi ces that use the reviewed theories. This process pro-
motes de full development of undergraduate and gradu-
ate students.
Scienti sts have to demand more and more from the in-
sti tuti ons that conduct or register systemati c reviews, the
inclusion of theoreti cal reviews or reviews concerned with
the theoreti cal dimension of the empirical work, either
with a qualitati ve or quanti tati ve nature, or both.
Hardly ever have we found instruments available for
this type of review, prepared to handle designs of empiri-
cal research. Here we propose to conti nue and improve a
trend set in this sense, already used in the JBI, which also
shelters opinion studies and makes available instruments
to perform them.
1503
Rev Esc Enferm USP
2011; 45(6):1497-1503
REFERENCES
1. Annan K. A challenge to the world’s scienti sts [editorial].
Science [In-
ternet]. 2003 [cited 2010 May 30];299(5612):1485. Available

from:
htt p://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/299/5612/1485
2. Kotzin S. Journal selecti on for Medline. In: 71th World
Library
and Informati on Congress: IFLA General Conference and
Coun-
cil “Libraries - A voyage of discovery”; 2005 Aug 4th - 18th;
Os-
lo, Norway [Internet]. Oslo; 2005 [cited 2010 June 3]. Available
from: htt p://www.ifl a.org/IV/ifl a71/Programme.htm
3. Casti el LD, Sanz-Valero J. Entre feti chismo e
sobrevivência:
o arti go cientí fi co é uma mercadoria acadêmica? Cad Saúde
Pública. 2007;23(12):3041-50.
4. Kuhn T. A estrutura das revoluções cientí fi cas. 7ª ed. São
Pau-
lo: Perspecti va; 2003.
5. Casti el LD, Póvoa EC. Medicina Baseada em Evidências:
“no-
vo paradigma assistencial e pedagógico”? Interface Comun
Saúde Educ. 2002;6(11):117-21.
6. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for
System-
ati c Reviews of Interventi ons Version 5.1.0 updated March
2011 [Internet]. Melbourne: The Cochrane Collaborati on;
2011 [cited 2011 June 10]. Available from: www.cochrane-
handbook.org
7. Booth A. Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct
sys-
temati c reviews of qualitati ve research? Paper presented at

the Qualitati ve Evidence-Based Practi ce Conference, Taking a
Criti cal Stance, Coventry University; 2001 May 14-16 [Inter-
net]. [cited 2010 June 3]. Available from: htt p://www.leeds.
ac.uk/educol/documents/00001724.htm
8. Mendes KDS, Silveira RCCP, Galvão CM. Revisão integra-
ti va: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidên-
cias na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto Contexto Enferm.
2008;17(4):758-64.
9. Salum MJL, Queiroz VM, Soares CB. Pesquisa social em
saúde: lições gerais de metodologia – a elaboração do plano
de pesquisa como momento parti cular da trajetória teórico-
metodológica. In: Anais do 2º Congresso Brasileiro de Ciên-
cias Sociais e Saúde; 1999; São Paulo, Brasil.
10. Alves-Mazzotti AJ. O método nas ciências naturais e
sociais: pes-
quisa quanti tati va e qualitati va. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Pioneira;
1999.
11. Guzzo RA, Jackson SE, Katzell RA. Meta-analysis analysis.
Res
Organ Behav. 1987;9(3):407-42.
12. Lalande A. Vocabulário técnico e críti co da fi losofi a. 3ª
ed.
São Paulo: Marti ns Fontes; 1999.
13. Elliott KC, McKaughan DJ. How values in scienti fi c dis-
covery and pursuit alter theory appraisal. Philos Sci.
2009;76(5):598-611.
14. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systemati c review
of
the use of theory in the design of guideline disseminati on

and implementati on strategies and interpretati on of the re-
sults of rigorous evaluati ons. Implement Sci. 2010;5:14.
15. O’Connell KA. Theories used in nursing research on
smoking
cessati on. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2009;27(1):33-62.
16. Arana GAC. Use of theories and models on papers of a Lati
n-
American journal in public health, 2000 to 2004. Rev Saúde
Pública. 2007;41(6):963-9.
17. Almeida AH. Educação em saúde: análise do ensino na grad-
uação em enfermagem no estado de São Paulo [tese douto-
rado]. São Paulo: Escola de Enfermagem da Universidade de
São Paulo; 2009.
18. Campos CMS, Soares CB, Trapé CA, Buff ett e BR, Silva
TC. Ar-
ti culação teoria-práti ca e processo ensino-aprendizagem em
uma disciplina de Enfermagem em Saúde Coleti va. Rev Esc
Enferm USP. 2009;43(n.esp 2):1226-31.
19. Abrantes NA, Marti ns LM. A produção do conhecimento
cientí fi co: relação sujeito-objeto e desenvolvimento do pens-
amento. Interface Comun Saúde Educ. 2007;11(22):315-25.
20. Santos VC, Soares CB, Campos CMS. A relação trabalho-
saúde de enfermeiros do PSF no município de São Paulo.
Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2007;41(n.esp):777-81.
21. Mendes Gonçalves RB. Tecnologia e organização social das
práti cas de saúde: característi cas tecnológicas do processo
de trabalho na Rede Estadual de Centros de Saúde de São
Paulo. São Paulo: Hucitec; 1994.

22. Bujdoso YLV, Trapé CA, Pereira EG, Soares CB. A
academia
e a divisão social do trabalho na enfermagem no setor pú-
blico: aprofundamento ou superação? Ciênc Saúde Coleti va.
2007;12(5):1363-74.
Correspondence addressed to: Cássia Soares Baldini
Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 419 – Cerqueira César
CEP 05403-000 – São Paulo, SP, Brazil
12
Ethnographic Methods:
Applications From Developmental
Cultural Psychology
Peggy J. Miller, Julie A. Hengst, and Su-hua Wang
Ethnographic modes of inquiry have had a long and
distinguished history in the
social sciences, especially in anthropology and sociology. Like
all interpretive
methods, ethnographic approaches are oriented to the study of
meaning, but,
in the case of ethnographic methods, meaning is understood to
be structured
by culture—that is, by collectively shared and transmitted
symbols, under-
standings, and ways of being. The word ethnography dates from
the emergence
of anthropology as a discipline in the late-19th century.
Anthropologists coined

the term to describe monograph-length descriptions of people
who were ethnoi
or “other” (Erickson, 1986). Intrigued by distant cultures, many
of which were
European colonies, they traveled to far-off outposts to see them
first-hand.
Ethnographic methods evolved out of these cross-cultural
encounters. The goal
was to understand a particular culture on its own terms, to
represent the
meaning of actions and institutions from “the native’s point of
view” (Malinow-
ski, 1922). In his ground-breaking study of the Trobriand
Islanders, Malinowski
combined long-term participant-observation with in-depth
interviewing, the
two hallmarks of modern ethnography (Erickson, 1986).
Ethnographic methods
remain the privileged mode of inquiry in cultural anthropology
and have become
increasingly important in the fields of education and
communication.
In psychology, where the prevailing orientation has been
positivist, propos-
als for a “second” or “cultural” psychology were part of the
intellectual landscape
from its inception as a discipline (Cahan & White, 1992;
Jahoda, 1989). Wilhelm
Wundt wrote extensively on cultural psychology and was
“captivated by the
ethnographic material he pursued so tirelessly” (Jahoda, 1993,
p. 181). Despite
this early history, modern psychology has excluded
ethnographic approaches
from its methodological repertoire. Even community

psychology, with its com-
mitments to contextual understandings and to collaborative
models of research,
has marginalized ethnographic methods (Stewart, 2000).
However, the recent renewal of interest in cultural psychology
makes it
timely to consider the nature of ethnographic methods, given
the affinity of
ethnography for problems in cultural psychology. Although
psychologists from
219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10595-012
Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in
Methodology and
Design, edited by P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley
Copyright © 2003 American Psychological Association. All
rights reserved.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
Am
er
ic
an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu
rt
he
r
di
st
ri
bu
ti
on
.

220 MILLER ET AL.
many corners of the discipline have contributed to recreating a
cultural psychol-
ogy (e.g., Bruner, 1990; Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz,
1996; Gergen,
1985; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), scholars of child
development have played
a particularly important role, and some have written extensively
about ethno-
graphic methods. In addition, there are several traditions of
interdisciplinary
study of child development in which ethnographic methods have
been privi-
leged. For these reasons, this chapter will draw heavily on
developmental
questions to illustrate the assumptions and aims of ethnographic
methods.
But before we turn to specific instantiations, it is necessary to
provide
additional background about the nature of ethnographic
methods. First, it is
important to stress that ethnographic modes of inquiry do not
constitute a
single, unified perspective or set of methods. Rather, here, as in
qualitative
inquiry in general, diversity reigns. This is amply illustrated in
Denzin and
Lincoln’s (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Denzin and
Lincoln’s intro-
duction to their volume provides an excellent survey of the
diversity of interpre-
tive paradigms. They see this diversity as anchored in
positivism, on the one
extreme, and postmodernism, on the other. The naive realist

position—there
is a reality out there that can be studied objectively and
understood—is coun-
tered by the postmodern, poststructuralist position of radical
doubt. Articulat-
ing the latter position, Denzin (1996) wrote, “There can never
be a final, accu-
rate representation of what was meant or said, only different
textual
representations of different experiences” (p. 132).
Between these two extremes are the middle-ground positions of
postpositiv-
ism and constructivism. According to Denzin and Lincoln
(1994), postpositivism
rests on the assumption that reality can never be fully
apprehended, only
approximated. Postpositivists use multiple methods to capture
as much of
reality as possible; emphasize the discovery and verification of
theories; and
apply traditional evaluative criteria, such as validity. Denzin
and Lincoln
(1994) defined constructivism as involving “a relativist
ontology (there are
multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (knower and
subject create un-
derstandings), and a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of
methodological
procedures” (p. 13). Evaluative criteria include trustworthiness,
credibility,
and confirmability.
Some Examples of Problems for Study
Denzin and Lincoln emphasized that these various positions are

realized within
particular disciplinary traditions that inflect them in distinctive
ways and that
each researcher enters the research process from the vantage
point of his or
her particular interpretive community, with its unique history of
research
practices. The interpretive community to which we belong is an
interdisciplin-
ary community that has tried to bring together culture and
children into a
culture-sensitive understanding of child development. For the
most part, this
community has drawn on the middle-ground positions of
postpositivism and
constructivism (e.g., Gaskins, 1994; Goncu, 1999; Grau &
Walsh, 1998; Jessor,
Colby, & Shweder, 1996; Rizzo, Corsaro, & Bates, 1992;
Shweder et al., 1998).
Co
py
ri
gh
t
Am
er
ic
an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu
rt
he
r
di
st
ri
bu
ti
on
.
ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODS 221

Consider, for example, Gaskins, Miller, and Corsaro’s (1992)
framing of a
set of papers pertaining to children’s socialization, one of the
fundamental
problems in developmental cultural psychology. Gaskins et al.
advocated an
interpretive approach that views reality as socially constructed;
recognizes
that the complex relationship between the researcher and the
participants is
part of the research question; and defines knowledge as
understanding that
makes sense to the actors themselves in terms of collectively
shared interpretive
frameworks, a criterion that privileges the actor’s point of view.
This approach
makes sense given the kinds of problems that this community of
scholars has
identified as central to their interests, problems that rest on the
premise that
all children grow up to be cultural beings. This characteristic is
unique to our
species and is perhaps the most important reason why human
beings experience
a prolonged period of immaturity (Bruner, 1972). The process
of human develop-
ment is thus inextricably bound to the process of enculturation,
of orienting
oneself within systems of meaning.
But, as Gaskins et al. (1992) pointed out, no child orients him-
or herself
within culture in general. Rather, each child navigates a specific
culture, with
a specific set of beliefs, practices, and interpretive frameworks.

The process of
becoming a participant in a culture is therefore enabling and
limiting at the
same time. Socialization, the universal process of becoming a
participant in a
culture, cannot be understood except by studying enculturation,
the process of
meaning creation in particular cultures (Mead, 1963).
Thus, the fundamental developmental question from this
perspective is
how do children come to invest cultural resources with
meaning? Born into a
world of already existing traditions and semiotic systems,
children use their
growing interpretive abilities to participate in cultural practices.
This process
is constructive and it is necessarily individual and collective. It
is individual
in that each child creates personal meaning out of the particular,
necessarily
limited set of resources to which he or she is exposed. It is
collective in that
these resources were created by previous generations and are
made available
to the child by other people. By participating with caregivers
and peers in day-
by-day encounters with cultural resources, children shape their
own develop-
mental experiences while at the same time contributing to the
production of
social order (Cook-Gumperz & Corsaro, 1986).
No one has probed a child’s meaning-making process more
profoundly than
Jean Briggs in her book, Inuit Morality Play (1998). Offspring

of Never in Anger
(J. Briggs, 1970), a classic of psychological anthropology, and
informed by three
decades of work with the Inuit, this study focuses on a single
three-year-old
child, Chubby Maata, as she engages a distinctive kind of
emotional drama
that is common to many Inuit families. J. Briggs sees culture as
a “ ‘bag of
ingredients’ actively used by individuals in creating and
maintaining their
social-cognitive worlds” (p. 14). This view allows her to realize
that she cannot
provide a full interpretation of the meanings that Chubby Maata
is making
because every fragment of data “explodes with potential
meanings” (p. 20). But
it is not only the witnessing ethnographer but the child herself
who has to live
with this ambiguity. Chubby Maata is making educated guesses,
based on her
past and present apprehension of the patterns in her own and
other people’s
words and actions. The ethnographer’s task is to follow the
child. She is making
Co
py
ri
gh
t
Am
er

ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu
rt
he
r
di
st
ri
bu
ti

on
.
222 MILLER ET AL.
educated guesses about Chubby Maata’s educated guesses. The
resulting eth-
nography is “a cloth full of holes, the very sort of cloth that
Chubby Maata
herself was weaving” (p. 20).
The metaphor of a cloth full of holes is compatible with Howard
Becker’s
(1996) understanding of a key interpretive challenge. Operating
out of the
Chicago school of sociology, Becker focuses not on
geographically distant cul-
tures but on poor urban neighborhoods, medical schools, the art
world, and
other contexts that are nearer at hand. He says that people—he
is speaking
of adults, not children—are “not sure what things do mean: they
make vague
and woolly interpretations of events and people” (p. 60). The
implication for
ethnographers is that we should respect people’s confusion and
indecision and
not represent their meanings as more coherent or stable than
they are.
The general problem of how children make meaning out of
cultural resources
implies several questions: What exactly is happening here? That
is, what kinds

of activities are these children and their companions engaging
in? What are the
folk theories—informal, local belief systems about children,
child-rearing, and
development—that inform and rationalize their activities? What
are the larger
contexts and activities in which these activities are embedded?
To some social
scientists, these will seem like uninteresting questions, inviting
“mere” descrip-
tion. But as Becker (1996) stressed, it is all too easy to think we
know what people
are up to. He cautioned, “Don’t make up what you could find
out” (p. 59).
Play provides an excellent example of how these general
questions have
been applied in a specific research arena. In the past decade,
play has inspired
several substantial ethnographic studies in different parts of the
world. Schol-
ars have asked questions about the types of play that occur
under everyday
conditions (e.g., pretend play, exploratory play, teasing), about
the folk theories
that parents hold about the nature of children, of development,
and of play
itself (e.g., play develops naturally to children vs. play must be
taught), and
about the larger contexts and activities in which play is
embedded (e.g., do
children contribute to the family’s livelihood, and if so, how
and from what
age, and how much time does this leave for play? Gaskins,
1996; Goldman,
1998; Goncu, 1999; Lancy, 1996; Taylor & Carlson, 2000).

These studies have produced findings that challenge
fundamental assump-
tions about the nature of play (Miller, 2001). They show that
play is constituted
differently within and across cultures: communities vary in the
types of play;
the time, space, and personnel available for play; whether play
is valued by
adults; what role, if any, play is seen to have in children’s
development; and
the kinds of imaginative resources that are drawn on for play.
These findings
challenge developmentalists to revise our assumption that
pretend play belongs
to a single ontological category. When viewed from the
perspective of this or
that local meaning system, pretend play emerges as a blessed
spiritual encoun-
ter, demon possession, deceit, or self-indulgent idleness.
Ethnographic Methods: An Overview
Ethnographic research involves taking up a rigorous program of
scientific in-
quiry marked by repeated and varied observations and data
collection; detailed
Co
py
ri
gh
t
Am

er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu
rt
he
r
di
st
ri
bu

ti
on
.
recordings of, and reactions to, such observations; a skeptical
stance by the
researcher that forces as many questions from the continuous
interpretation
of the data as it provides answers; and the presentation of
ongoing interpreta-
tions to the larger scientific community. Despite the diversity,
common issues
and practices cut across ethnographic research, whether
conducted in the origi-
nating discipline of anthropology for the purposes of
documenting whole cul-
tures or conducted by researchers addressing a diversity of
questions across
multiple disciplines. In this section we first address
characteristics common
to ethnographic methods, then briefly outline four key phases in
ethnographic
research. For more detailed discussions of how to conduct
ethnographic re-
search see Agar (1980), Erickson (1986), Hymes (1982), and
Wolcott (1995).
Characteristics of Ethnographic Inquiry
One important characteristic of ethnographic methods is the
sustained and

engaged nature of data collection. “Classic” ethnographic
studies within anthro-
pology focus on cultures “foreign” to the researcher and, as a
consequence,
fieldwork necessarily includes time for the researcher to
become familiar with,
and learn to navigate within, unfamiliar physical, social, and
communicative
environments (e.g., Basso, 1996; C. L. Briggs, 1986; J. Briggs,
1970; Schieffelin,
1990). As ethnographic methods have been taken up by
researchers in other
disciplines, such as education and psychology, and applied to
problems closer
to “home,” the researcher often enters a research site where he
or she has
already spent time and is acquainted with “local” linguistic,
social, or institu-
tional histories and practices (e.g., Baym, 2000; Denzin, 1993;
Giorgio, 1999;
Heath, 1983; Prior, 1998; Wolf & Heath, 1992). In such cases,
time “in the
field” may be shorter as the researcher is able to draw more
heavily on personal
experiences and communicative practices in customizing data
collection. In
either case, to penetrate participants’ meaning systems,
ethnographers must
familiarize themselves with the participants’ community—the
physical and
institutional settings in which they live, the daily routines that
they and their
companions follow, the beliefs that guide their actions, and the
linguistic and
other semiotic systems that mediate all of these contexts and
activities.

Through such sustained community contact, researchers
necessarily be-
come deeply engaged in the lives, practices, celebrations, and
problems of their
participants. In remote and isolated sites, the very survival of
the researcher
may depend on the strengths of the relationships the researcher
has been able
to forge and the goodwill of the community members under
study (e.g., J.
Briggs, 1970; Gottlieb & Graham, 1993). Even when life and
limb are not at
stake, the research itself is shaped and strengthened by the
willingness of
individuals to participate in the researcher’s project. Much has
been written
about the complexities of researcher–participant relationships in
the interpre-
tive process (see Behar, 1993; Scheper-Hughes, 1992; Wolcott,
1995; Wolf,
1992). In fact, Engstrom (1996) argued that one way to measure
the validity
and generalizability of research findings is to look for
successful collaborations
between the researchers and the participants. In ethnographic
work, research-
ers often find that because of their relationships with
participants and their
Co
py
ri
gh

t
Am
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu
rt
he
r
di
st
ri

bu
ti
on
.
224 MILLER ET AL.
developing emic understandings, they are in a unique position
to help speak
across cultures on behalf of the group being studied (e.g.,
Basso, 1996; Philips,
1983) and to help identify avenues of change that support
community goals
(e.g., Engstrom, 1996). These opportunities for personal, social,
and political
intervention make ethnographic research an attractive choice for
action re-
search traditions in education (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1993) and commu-
nity psychology (e.g., Stewart, 2000).
Ethnographic methods also carry with them an implicit
multicultural per-
spective, a perspective that is often made explicit within
particular research
programs (e.g., Miller, Fung, & Mintz, 1996; Rogoff, Mistry,
Goncu, & Mosier,
1993). In attempting to apprehend local meanings,
ethnographers try not to
mistake their own deeply taken-for-granted, culturally saturated
understand-
ings for those of the study participants—a challenge that is

never fully met.
To anticipate an example that will come later in the chapter, if
the goal is to
appreciate the interpretive frameworks of parents from a
particular American
community, and the ethnographer is Taiwanese, then the process
of bringing
these parents’ (American) frameworks into focus will also
expose the ethnogra-
pher’s own (Taiwanese) frameworks. Thus, even when
ethnographers study a
single cultural case, they aim for double vision at least. In fact,
American
parents and Taiwanese ethnographers belong to multiple
communities and are
likely to live and breathe meanings that flow within and across
multiple cul-
tures. This does not mean that cultural boundaries have no
reality, but it does
make a mockery of the idea that cultural boundaries can be
neatly drawn in
this increasingly globalized world.
Another characteristic of ethnographic inquiry is that data
collection and
analyses are both microscopic and holistic (Gaskins et al.,
1992). Focusing
on the details of particular participants and practices,
ethnographic methods
capture unanticipated nuances and variations of human
interaction. However,
Geertz (1973) argued that detailed description of behavior
alone, what he calls
“thin description,” is not sufficient to recoup meaning. Instead,
ethnographers
engage in what Geertz (1973) termed “thick description.” To

ensure that their
understandings are culturally valid, ethnographers ground their
interpreta-
tions of cultural events in an accumulation of specific details
from the events
of everyday life and from the participants’ reflections on those
events. It is in
this way that ethnographers approach broad interpretations
“from the direction
of exceedingly extended acquaintances with extremely small
matters” (Geertz,
1973, p. 21). By way of illustrating the distinction between
“thin” and “thick”
description, Geertz (1973) borrowed Ryle’s example of two
boys who are “rapidly
contracting the eyelids of their right eyes” (p. 6). Are they
blinking, winking,
parodying a wink, faking a wink, practicing a wink? It is
impossible to say
without understanding the multiple embedded contexts in which
these actions
took place and the socially established communicative code that
renders them
intelligible. Thus, it is necessary not only to examine actions
microscopically
but also to contextualize them in a more holistic sense to
successfully describe
an event as it was understood by the actors themselves.
Finally, ethnographic inquiry is a dynamic process marked by
generative
and self-corrective methodologies (Gaskins et al., 1992).
Successful researchers
Co
py

ri
gh
t
Am
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu
rt
he
r

di
st
ri
bu
ti
on
.
need to be flexible from the beginning, prepared to revise or
discard initial
research questions and adjust data collection procedures as they
position them-
selves physically and socially in the research site. J. Briggs
(1970), for example,
set out to study shamans among the Inuit, only to discover that
shamans no
longer existed in the community she had entered. When Miller,
Sandel, Liang,
and Fung (2001) formulated their research questions about the
role of personal
storytelling in Longwood, hell-raising stories were not on their
list; the parents
in this community brought such stories to their attention. In
addition, research-
ers must be open to learning locally appropriate ways to ask
questions and
hold interviews (C. L. Briggs, 1986); they must develop
effective ways to present
their research project and their role as researcher to the

participants, a problem
that is especially complex when the participants are children
(Corsaro, 1985,
1988); and they must learn to situate themselves physically and
socially in
ways that allow them to observe the phenomena of interest
(Ochs, 1988). Often,
such negotiations include a willingness on the part of the
researcher to accept
the interactions that are offered and to look for new ways to
augment data
collection (Prior, 1998).
The generative and self-correcting nature of ethnographic
inquiry is also
evident during data analysis and writing. The interpretive
process, guided by
the notion of cultural validity, is theory-generating. The goal is
to provide a
deeper understanding of the multiple perspectives that are
operating in all
human interactions. Therefore, categories used in analysis are
not predeter-
mined but are developed through a continual process of iterative
division,
classification, and evaluation (Bloom, 1974; Strauss, 1987). The
researcher
begins with a tentative descriptive framework—what Pike
(1967) called an
etic classification—often gleaned from other data sets or
theoretical positions,
and proceeds to test that framework through successive passes
through the
data. The outcome of this self-corrective process of constant
comparison is an
emic classification (Pike, 1967) that captures the patterns in the

Running Head Quantitative research1Quantitative research3.docx

Running Head Quantitative research1Quantitative research3.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head Quantitative research1Quantitative research3.docx

Similar to Running Head Quantitative research1Quantitative research3.docx (20)

More from toltonkendal

More from toltonkendal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head Quantitative research1Quantitative research3.docx