Romero M, Rodríguez EM, Durand-Smith A, Aguilera RM

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 76-83
PDF size: 193.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Scientific research is not a neutral task. The existence of several paradigms and, as a consequence, different methodological approaches to study social reality, is an evidence of this statement. According to Ibañez, the couple quantitative-qualitative is the most polemic one. There are not only different types of techniques, but the main difference lays in the paradigms that each one responds to.
According to Guba and Lincoln, paradigms can be seen as a group of basic beliefs related to last principles. They represent a vision of the world that defines, for those who use them, the nature of the world, the place of the individual in it, and the range of possibilities between them. Each paradigm answers three closely related questions: 1. A definition of the form and nature of reality; 2. A definition of the kind of relation established between the scientific who knows and the reality that is known, and 3. A definition of the specific methods that can be used to know that reality.
According to Castro, for the qualitative approach what matters is observing, listening, and comprehending, so the level of reality that is known is a subjective one. The actors are the ones who create the social order through interaction and not the other way around. This approach favors comprehension rather than explanations, and the analysis of the subjects and individuals is carried out at a micro-level. Because of that, this interpretative approach is the one used to develop inductive knowledge, assuming that the meanings obtained are diverse.
This kind of descriptive, analytic, and explorative approach is the best way to study hidden populations.

REFERENCES

1. ADLER P: Ethnographic research on hidden populations: penetrating the drug world. En: Lambert E (ed). The Collection and Interpretation of Data of Hidden Populations. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research Monograph Series. No. 98, 1990.

2. ATKINSON R, FLINT J: Accessing hidden and hard-toreach populations: snowball research strategies. Social Research Update. Issue 33. Department of Sociology, 2001.

3. BERG B: Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Ed. Allyn and Bacon, USA. 2001.

4. CANALES M, PEINADO A: Grupos de discusión. En: Delgado JM, Gutiérrez J (eds). Métodos y Técnicas Cualitativas de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales. Ed. Síntesis Psicología, Madrid, 1995.

5. CASTRO R: La búsqueda del significado: supuestos, alcances y limitaciones del análisis cualitativo. En: Szas I, Lerner S (eds). Para Comprender la Subjetividad, Salud Reproductiva y Sexualidad. El Colegio de México, México, 1996.

6. CHEEK J, RUDGE T: The power of normalization: Foucaldian perspectives on contemporary Australian health care practices. Australian J Social Issues, 28(4):271-284, 1993.

7. DENZIN N, LINCOLN G: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage. Londres, 1994.

8. ERICKSON B: Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociological Methodology, 10:276-302, 1979.

9. FOX NJ: Postmodernism, Sociology and Health. Buckingham. Open University Press, 1993.

10. FOUCAULT M: Discipline and punishment. Tavistock, Londres, 1977.

11. GOLDSTEIN P, SPUNT B, MILLER TH, BELLUCCI P: Ethnographic field stations. En: Lambert E (ed). The Collection and Interpretation of Data of Hidden Populations. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research Monograph Series. No. 98. Rockville, 1990.

12. GUBA E, LINCOLN Y: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. En: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, 105-117, Thousand, 1994.

13. GUMPERZ J: Conversational inference and classroom learning. En: Green JL, Wallat (comps). Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings, Norwood, Ablex, 1981.

14. HAMMER E, WILDAVSY A: La entrevista semi-estructurada de final abierto. Aproximación a una guía operativa: En: Historia y Fuente. Oral, 4:23-61, 1990.

15. HAMMERSLEY M, ATKINSON P: Etnografía. Métodos de investigación. Paidós, Básica, Buenos Aires, Barcelona, México, 1994.

16. HECKARTHON D: Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden population. Social Problems, 44(2), 1997.

17. IBAÑEZ J: El Regreso del Sujeto. La Investigación Social del Segundo Orden. Siglo Veintiuno de España Editores, 1994.

18. INICARDI J: Some considerations on the methods, dangers and ethics of crack house research. 1994 Criminal justice online.hartcourtcollege.com/crim/research…/crack.htm.

19. LAMBERT E, WIEBEL W: Introduction. En: Lambert E (ed). The Collection and Interpretation of Data of Hidden Populations. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research Monograph Series. No. 98. Rockville, 1990.

20. LIPOVETSKY G: La Era del Vacío. Ensayos sobre el Individualismo Contemporáneo. Anagrama. Barcelona, 2000.

21. SIERRA F: Función y sentido de la entrevista cualitativa en investigación social. En: Galindo J (ed). Técnicas de Investigación en Sociedad, Cultura y Comunicación. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. Addison Wesley Longman, México, 1998.

22. SPRADLEY JP: Participant observation. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Nueva York, 1980.

23. VAN METER K: Methodological and design issues: techniques for assessing the representatives of snowball samples. En: Lambert (ed). The Collection and Interpretation of Data From Hidden Populations. NIDA Research Monograph 98, Rockville, 1990.

24. VELA F: Un acto metodológico básico de la investigación social: la entrevista cualitativa. En: Tarres ML (ed).: Observar, escuchar y comprender. Sobre la Tradición Cualitativa en la Investigación Social. Miguel Angel Porrúa, El Colegio de México, FLACSO, México, 2001.

25. WATTERS J, BIERNACKI P: Targeted sampling: positions for the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 36(4):416-430, 1989.