Читать книгу A Companion to Medical Anthropology - Группа авторов - Страница 70
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
ОглавлениеThe breadth of medical anthropology makes it impractical to discuss the full range of relevant methods of data collection and analysis. Instead, Table 4.3 summarizes the most commonly used methods of data collection and points to key literature for detail about specific techniques. The table briefly describes each method and the purposes for which it is appropriate. The column labeled E––––––C suggests the types of research questions along the exploratory–confirmatory continuum for which the method is useful. This suggestion is only a rough guide; some methods (e.g., spatial analysis, social network analysis) can be used with varying levels of structure and adapted to a wide range of exploratory or confirmatory questions.
Table 4.3 Commonly used methods of data collection in medical anthropology
| Method | Purposes | Procedures | E–––––C | Further Reading |
| Participant observation | Understand everyday life from insider’s perspective; generate hypotheses; enhance quality of data collection and analysis | Engage in day-to-day life; make systematic record of informal interactions, observations, and conversations | |–––––– | (Bernard 2018:Ch. 12–13; DeWalt and DeWalt 2002; Spradley 1980) |
| Systematic observation | Learn what people do, not just what they say; understand behavior in relation to cultural context | Define variables to be measured; develop sampling strategy; develop systematic rules about what to observe; record behavior | ––––––| | (Bernard 2018:Ch. 14; Hames and Paolisso 2015; Borgerhoff Mulder and Caro 1985; Gross 1984) |
| Interviewing | ||||
| Unstructured | Understand lived experience from informants’ perspective; build rapport; identify salient issues; discover appropriate language | Develop general interview questions; plan probes to explore for detail; listen actively; keep interview on topic, but encourage informant to lead | –|––––– | (Bernard 2018:Ch. 8–10; Spradley 1979; Gorden 1992; Schensul and LeCompte 2013; Weller 2015) |
| Semistructured | Balance flexibility and structure; enhance comparisons across informants; best for one-time interviews; develop preliminary hypotheses | Develop interview guide; ensure all topics are covered, but allow flexibility in order and pace of the interview | –––|––– | |
| Structured | Test relationships among items in a cultural domain; test distribution of cultural knowledge; test relations between variables | Develop interview schedule or other stimuli; expose informants to the stimuli that are as identical as possible (e.g., cultural domain analysis, surveys) | ––––––| | |
| Elicitation methods | ||||
| Free lists | Identify contents and boundaries of a Romney 1988) cultural domain; learn which concepts and categories are meaningful; learn how to ask questions | Conceptualize cultural domain (e.g., illnesses); ask informants to name all items in the domain | –|––––– | (Dengah et al. 2021; Dressler 2018; Ryan et al. 2000; Weller and Free lists Identify contents and boundaries of a Romney 1988) |
| Pile sorts, triad tests triad tests | Understand how participants perceive relationships among items in a cultural domain; examine semantic structure; describe inter- and intracultural variation | Ask informants to sort stimuli into piles that belong together; stimuli could be index cards with names of concepts or physical objects (e.g., photos, artifacts) | ––|–––– | |
| Successive free lists | Explore relations between items in two domains (e.g., illnesses and symptoms); explore boundaries between categories and level of agreement among informants | Elicit free lists for initial domain (e.g., illnesses); for each item in first domain, elicit free list for other domains (e.g., symptoms, treatments) | –|––––– | |
| Frame substitution, yes-no | Test hypotheses about relations between items in two domains (e.g., illnesses and causes); describe inter- and intracultural variation | Construct frames of the form, “Can _____ come from ______?” Substitute items from related domains (e.g., illness and causes); record answers as yes-no | ––––|– | |
| Rankings, ratings, paired comparisons | Evaluate participants’ perception of items along one or more dimensions; test hypotheses about semantic structure; describe inter- and intracultural variation | Ask informants to rank or rate items along some dimension; for paired comparisons, present informants with pairs of items and ask, “Which one is more ______?” | ––––|– | |
| Focus groups | Use group interaction to elicit data that would be harder to collect in individual interviews; explore perceptions of a topic or steps in a process; interpret results of survey or other more structured methods | Recruit participants (usually 6–12); decide on group composition; prepare interview guide; train moderator and note-taker; decide on level of transcription required; sample size is equal to number of groups | –|––––– | –|––––– (Schensul and LeCompte 2013; Morgan and Krueger 1998; Sobo 2009:Ch. 10) |
| Visual ethnography | Document behavior and cultural practices; elicit participants’ perspectives; encourage collaboration and co-learning | Construct visual record (photographs or video) using degree of structure suitable for research objectives | –|––––– | (El Guindi 2004; Wang and Burris 1997) |
| Social network analysis | Explore or test the pattern of social relations in a predefined group (sociocentric or whole network analysis) or in the web of social relations around focal individual (ego-centric or personal network analysis) | Reconstruct social ties through archival materials, record with direct observation, or elicit through interview methods | –|––––|– | (Bernard 2018, Ch. 10; Borgatti et al. 2018 |
| Spatial mapping | Explore or test the spatial distribution of phenomena; study nested relations at multiple levels of analysis; elicit participants’ understanding of space and place | Construct geographic information system using administrative (e.g., census) data or collect primary data; ask participants to make and interpret maps | –|––––|– | (Brondizio and Van Holt 2015; Steinberg and Steinberg 2006) |
| Note: E–––––––C refers to continuum of exploratory to confirmatory research questions (see Figure 4.2). Hash marks suggest approximately where along this continuum each method of data collection would be appropriate. Some methods (e.g., social network analysis) are well suited to questions along the exploratory–confirmatory continuum; these methods are marked with two hash marks. |
