• English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • 中文 
    • English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • 登入
查看項目 
  •   首頁
  • OAI Data Pool
  • OAI Harvested Content
  • 查看項目
  •   首頁
  • OAI Data Pool
  • OAI Harvested Content
  • 查看項目
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

瀏覽

所有文獻群體出版日期標題主題作者此合集出版日期標題主題作者個人檔案檢視

我的帳號

登入

The Library

AboutNew SubmissionSubmission GuideSearch GuideRepository PolicyContact

Statistics

Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

Praiseworthy pragmatism? Validity and action research.

  • CSV
  • RefMan
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • RefWorks
Author(s)
Hope KW, Waterman HA.

所有記錄
顯示完整的項目記錄
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/3759506
Online Access
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/escholar/uk-ac-man-scw:1d24339
https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02777.x
Abstract
Background:Action research has been promoted as a suitable methodology for nursing, but is located in a discourse that challenges its claims of validity. This discourse, influenced by postivism, is similar to that which qualitative researchers have faced.Aim:This article contributes to theorectical discussion of the validity of action research.Findings:Because of similarities, the emergent debates around reconceptualisation of validity in qualitative research are outlined, prior to a consideration of the relative arguments in relation to action research. Three avenues of thought are discerned: that no criteria are required; that parallels with other schools are appropriate; and that new concepts specific to one school of thought should be developed.Conclusions:Becasue of its ethical and action-oriented principles, action research offers the potential to address validity issues that remain problematic to 'pure' qualitative researchers, and it can be claimed that its pragmatic approach is validity-enhancing. We argue for the rejection of naive rule-based formulae and for recognition of the impact of contextual and pragmatic concerns, so that the potential for the added value of action research might be realised.
Date
2003-10
Type
Original work
Identifier
oai:escholar.manchester.ac.uk:uk-ac-man-scw-1d24339
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/escholar/uk-ac-man-scw:1d24339
0309-2402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02777.x
14521679
合集
OAI Harvested Content

entitlement

 
DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2022)  DuraSpace
快速指南 | 聯絡我們
Open Repository is a service operated by 
Atmire NV
 

導出搜尋結果

導出選項允許您將輸入的查詢所產生的搜尋結果導出到一個檔案中。有不同的格式可以選擇下載。要導出項目,請點擊與最佳下載格式相對應的按鈕。

預設情況下,點擊導出按鈕會導致進行系統允許下,下載最大數量的項目。

要選擇搜索結果的子集,請點擊「選擇性導出」按鈕,然後選擇要導出的項目。每次可以導出的項目數量與完全導出受到同樣的限制。

"

作出選擇後,點擊其中一個導出格式按鈕。導出格式旁邊的氣泡中會顯示即將導出的項目數量。

"