Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Waarnemingsmethoden in kwalitatief onderzoek

Methodologie van kwalitatief onderzoek

  • Methodologie van kwalitatief onderzoek
  • Published:
Huisarts en Wetenschap Aims and scope

Abstract

Hak T. Data collection in qualitative research. Huisarts Wet 2004;47(11):502-8.

This article discusses the main methods of data collection in qualitative research. Ways of achieving appropriate levels of validity and reliabilityand of avoiding selection bias are discussed. Because qualitative research is characterised by an iteration between data collection and analysis, it is quite common that multiple types of data collection are used in a single research project, each of which plays a role in a specific phase of the research project.

Unfortunately, the most common research design published in medical journals is the ‘cross-sectional qualitative survey’, in which conclusions are based on data from one-off unstructured or semi-structured interviews with a limited number of individuals (usually patients), selected in a more or less unsystematic manner (‘convenience sample’). This design is rather problematic.

Data collection through focus groups is also a popular method used in medical and health services research. It is often invalid in terms of the research objective and question.

The best qualitative research consists of consecutive parts. Each of these is steered by a research objective and a question that is dependent on the results of the preceding parts. In each part, a method of data collection is chosen that is appropriate for that part's particular research objective and question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatuur

  • Britten N. Qualitative Research: Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 1995;311:251-3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger J. Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311:299-302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative Research: Observational methods in health care settings. BMJ 1995;311:182-4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones J, Hunter D. Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995;311:376-80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keen J, Packwood T. Qualitative Research: Case study evaluation. BMJ 1995;311:444-6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The AM, Hak T, Koëter G, Van der Wal G. Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. BMJ 2000;321:1376-81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savage J. Ethnography and health care. BMJ 2000;321:1400-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wester F, Hak T. De methodologie van kwalitatief onderzoek. In: Hak T, Wester F, redactie. Kwalitatief onderzoek: de praktijk. Waarneming, analyse en reflectie. Amsterdam: SISWO, 2003:7-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wester F. Strategieën voor kwalitatief onderzoek. Muiderberg: Coutinho, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaling A. Methodologische objectiviteit en kwalitatief onderzoek. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman AC, Sweeney K. Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study, BMJ 2001;323:1100-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK, Fiske M, Kendall PL. The focused interview. A manual of problems and procedures. Glencoe (Il): Free Press, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows HS. Stimulated recall (Personalized assessment of clinical reasoning). Carbondale (Il): Southern Illinois University Medical School, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudnow D. Passing on: the social organization of dying. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hak T. ‘Text’ and ‘con-text’: Talk bias in studies of health care work. In: Sarangi S, Roberts C, editors. Talk, work and the institutional order. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 1999:427-51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L. Unobtrusive measure. Non-reactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wester F. Analyse van kwalitatief onderzoeksmateriaal. Huisarts Wet 2004 [ter perse].

  • Lloyd-Jones G. A multiple case study of the first year student perspective in a medical undergraduate PBL curriculum [Proefschrift]. University of Liverpool, Department of Primary Care, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd-Jones G, Hak T. Self-directed learning and student pragmatism. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004;9:61-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. www.bsl.nl/shop/huisarts-en-wetenschap-0018-7070.html

    Tony Hak

Authors
  1. Tony Hak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony Hak.

Additional information

dr. T. Hak, universitair hoofddocent methodologie, Rotterdam School of Management / Faculteit Bedrijfskunde, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam.

Mogelijke belangenverstrengeling: niets aangegeven.

About this article

Cite this article

Hak, T. Waarnemingsmethoden in kwalitatief onderzoek. HUWE 47, 205–212 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03083720

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03083720

Search

Navigation