| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Conjectures and RefutationsGovernmental Funding and Qualitative ResearchUniversity of Minnesota, USA, jgilgun{at}umn.edu In this article, I review ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Research’, a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit proposals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund qualitative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and constructive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally.
Key Words: analytic induction • discourse and power • governmental funding • proposal writing • qualitative research
Qualitative Social Work, Vol. 1, No. 3,
359-375 (2002) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
