The quantification of midwifery research: Limiting midwifery knowledge.

literature review midwifery qualitative research quantitative research

Journal

Birth (Berkeley, Calif.)
ISSN: 1523-536X
Titre abrégé: Birth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8302042

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2022
Historique:
revised: 21 12 2021
received: 08 09 2021
accepted: 24 01 2022
pubmed: 15 3 2022
medline: 18 5 2022
entrez: 14 3 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

As two academics researching in the area of maternal health, we are increasingly concerned with what we see as a positivist turn in midwifery research. In this paper, we examine this idea of the quantification of midwifery research, using as an example the current esteem given to the systematic literature review, and its creep into other methodologies. We argue that the current favor toward quantitative research and expertise in midwifery academia risks the future of midwifery research by the lack of equal development of qualitative experts, diluting qualitative research rigor within the profession, and limiting the kinds of questions asked. We identify the similarity between the current prominence of quantitative research and medical dominance in midwifery and maintain that it is of vital importance to the profession (research and practice) that the proper attention, contemplation, and merit are given to qualitative research methods.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35285077
doi: 10.1111/birt.12615
pmc: PMC9315019
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

175-178

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors. Birth published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Références

Midwifery. 2019 Sep;76:1-7
pubmed: 31128388
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jan 24;14:46
pubmed: 24456576
Women Birth. 2021 Feb;34(1):e92-e96
pubmed: 32593541
Med Anthropol. 2019 Oct;38(7):560-573
pubmed: 30521376
BMJ. 2011 Nov 23;343:d7400
pubmed: 22117057
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 28;4:CD004667
pubmed: 27121907
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 29;9(10):e029192
pubmed: 31662359
Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2021 Jun 28;8:23333936211028187
pubmed: 34263014
Birth. 2022 Jun;49(2):175-178
pubmed: 35285077

Auteurs

Elizabeth Newnham (E)

Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
University of Newcastle, New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia.

Barbara Katz Rothman (BK)

The City University of New York, New York, New York, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH