QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative Research in Clinical Area

Qualitative Research in Clinical Area

Introduction

Many debates about research methods are fundamentally disagreements about the clinical approaches taken to the investigation for psychological phenomena. Most accounts of research methods tend to avoid these debates, by the use of two main strategies. The one strategy is to discuss the quantitative research and other strategy is to discuss in detail what could be considered mainstream or scientific that is realist approach to usually quantitative research methods in clinical area that discuss key issues arising from a study of multi-agency rehabilitative care for people who have been suffered from a stroke disease. Then, the research consider alternatives to the scientific approach, where usually qualitative research methods are discussed and defined by the ways in which they differ from the mainstream. (Bem, 2005, pp. 20) Both these approaches have drawbacks. The first approach tends to present quantitative research methods as an uncontested body of statistical truths, whereas there is by no means consensus among statisticians themselves about issues such as definitions of probability and the appropriateness of null hypothesis significance testing. This approach is therefore misleading, implying a false consensus about the appropriateness of a subset of research methods for all research questions. The second strategy for discussing research methods can fall into the trap of emphasizing only the drawbacks of realist/positivist approaches. Furthermore, as the focus is on qualitative alternatives to the scientific approach, it fails to identify where important differences exist within this approach, for example in terms of causality versus prediction. This introductory section therefore aims to provide an overview of the main clinical approach to both quantitative and qualitative research methods for people who suffered from stroke with more detailed discussion of how these approaches influence choice of methods contained within later sections. The paper also illustrates the principles of Evidence based practice that constructs may cause such behavior, rather than merely predict it (Bem, 2005, pp. 33).

Discussion and Analysis

Most quantitative researchers in clinical areas broadly agree with a scientific approach to the research. This approach will be assumed in the sections on quantitative research methods, and can be characterized in the following way. The central aim of this approach is objectivity: emphasis is placed on precision of observation for those peoples who have been suffered from stroke disease, thereby eliminating or at least reducing error and bias. Objectivity is also manifested in attempts to discover universal theories, which are as general as possible, and to clearly delineate the circumstances under which theories do not obtain. (Meehl, 2006, pp. 201) Good research in this tradition is exemplified by explicit tests of clearly stated theories, with methods designed and reported to allow replication, and results clearly supporting or refuting theoretically derived hypotheses. The gold standard of this approach is usually the randomized experiment, in which highly focused manipulations are targeted at specific clinical constructs for the peoples who suffered from stroke and illustrate evidence based approach, with the aim of eliciting an equally specific effect, as predicted by ...