PESQUISA

 

Standardized discourse recording model: methodological proposal for the systematization of interviews in qualitative research

 

Modelo de registro padronizado do discurso: proposta metodológica para sistematização de entrevistas em pesquisas qualitativas

 

Modelo de registro estandarizado del discurso: propuesta metodológica para la sistematización de entrevistas en la investigación cualitativa

 

 

Zeina Hassen Mustafa^I; Dirce Guilhem^II; Elioenai Dornelles Alves^III

^IMestre em Ciências da Saúde, professora de Legislação e Ética, Crescimento e Desenvolvimento Humano, Treinamento Desportivo, e Saúde Pública, Departamento de Educação Física, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade da Grande Dourados- UNIGRAN. zeinahassen@yahooo.com.br
^IIPhD, professora de Bioética, Departamento de Enfermagem, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade de Brasíla-UNB. guilhem@unb.br e dirceguilhem@gmail.com
^IIIPhD, professor de Enfermagem, Departamento de Enfermagem, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade de Brasíla-UNB. elioenai@unb.br

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Qualitative research is considered an innovative way of apprehending reality. There is still a need to improve the methods used in conducting interviews and in the way in which dense complex discourses are systematized and analyzed. Considering the technical and operational difficulties that qualitative methods tend to create, a methodological proposal called Standardized Discourse Recording Model is being proposed with the aim of finding a structural logic that systematizes the construction of interviews. To demonstrate the use of this technique, the discourse recording of three people who were interviewed in a project in which this methodology was applied is presented as examples. One can observe the unfolding of its three operational phases - script elaboration, material for the discourse recording, and construction of the text from the interviews - and conclude that this process creates a standardized model of constructing the interviews, which makes the register and the analysis of the data easier.

Keywords: Qualitative Research. Methodology. Data Display. Interviews.

---

RESUMO

A pesquisa qualitativa é considerada uma forma inovadora de apreensão da realidade. Persiste a necessidade de aprimoramento dos métodos utilizados para realizar as entrevistas e, principalmente, do modo de sistematizar e de analisar depoimentos densos e complexos. Consideradas as dificuldades técnicas e operacionais que os métodos qualitativos tendem a gerar, apresenta-se uma proposta metodológica denominada Modelo de Registro Padronizado do Discurso, que objetiva encontrar uma lógica estrutural que sistematize a construção das entrevistas. Para demonstrar a aplicação da técnica, apresenta-se, como exemplo, o registro de discursos de três entrevistados em um projeto de pesquisa no qual esta técnica foi utilizada. Pode-se observar o desdobramento de suas três fases operacionais - construção de um roteiro, formulário de registro do discurso e construção do texto das entrevistas -, o que nos leva a concluir que esse processo proporciona um modelo padronizado de construção das entrevistas que facilita o registro e a análise dos dados.

Palavras-chave: Pesquisa Qualitativa. Metodologia. Apresentação de Dados. Entrevistas.

---

RESUMEN

La investigación cualitativa es considerada una metodología innovadora para conocer la realidad. Todavía persiste la necesidad de mejorar los métodos utilizados para realización de entrevistas, la forma de sistematización de los datos y el análisis de discursos complejos y densos. Considerando las dificultades técnicas y operacionales que los métodos cualitativos ocasionan, fue elaborada una propuesta metodológica denominada Modelo de Registro Estandarizado del Discurso. Si propone encontrar una lógica estructural que sistematiza la construcción de las entrevistas. Para ejemplificar su aplicación, fueram utilizados los discursos de tres participantes de una investigación. La técnica está compuesta por tres fases operacionales: elaboración del guía de entrevista, formato para registro del discurso y construcción del texto final para presentación de las entrevistas. Se puede concluir que este proceso cria un modelo estandarizado de construir las entrevistas, lo que proporciona el registro y el análisis de los datos más facilmente.

Palabras clave: Investigación Cualitativa. Metodología. Presentación de Datos. Entrevistas.

---

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Qualitative research is considered in scientific field an innovative way of apprehending reality and which utilizes different tools for such. One that can be considered essential for the qualitative investigator is the interview. In supplying a theoretical basis and the practical aspects related to the process of interview implementation, Kvale argues that it is not always possible to understand this process easily¹. In compensation for the difficulty found during the process of constructing an interview, the discourse or the text that results from the transcription is put together using the most appropriate methodological tools for dealing with the thoughts that are the culmination of discursive subject matter². This, necessarily, brings up the need to improve the methods used to conduct the interview and its organization for later presentation and discussion.

Regarding the construction of the interview in qualitative research, we must make a distinction between the discourse and the text. According to Minayo's argument, discourse is the language in interaction, while the text, inside an analytical concept, is the finished discourse for analysis³. A text may be one word, a group of sentences, or a larger document, taken as the unit of the complex analysis of meaning. Discourse is a theoretical-methodological concept derived from the insertion of language in the social and cultural context. However, the nature of the interview in qualitative research can not be separated from the transcription process. Watson points out the possibility of having inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities and instabilities⁴, and Lather calls attention to the fact that when one considers the semantic differences in the vocabulary used, this may characterize researchers and participants as unreliable narrators⁵.

In the process of conducting the interview, which is understood as a methodology that functions as a mechanism used to validate the results in qualitative research, Rosa et al⁶ question which would be the viable procedures and which would be those that should never be used during this process. As such, they indicate that for the improvement of the conduct of research, one must recognize the need to establish, among other things, trust between the interviewer and the interviewee.

In this sense, it is important to call attention to ethical and technical aspects that can not be separated during the research process. Denzin⁷ examines the future of qualitative research and deals with the ethical question that emerges from the use of qualitative methods for the protection of ethical principles regarding investigation strategies as well as the stance of the investigator. When the need to assure the reliability of qualitative studies is pointed out, the author insists that, from the ethical point of view, there are confrontations in qualitative research that need direction from ethical principles.

In interviews, as instruments for qualitative data collection, Chizzotti⁸ calls attention to the need to be especially careful to make sure that the technique is carried out in a scientific manner, as well as to verify the quality of the information that was collected and its registration. These are efforts that include, besides the attitude of the interviewer, adequate ways of recording the data, which facilitates their analysis.

Regarding the correct decisions to be made in terms of the research strategy, Flick⁹ discusses new approaches for qualitative research. The author calls attention to the fact that, mainly for the qualitative approach, the comparison between the available, collected, and prepared data should permit one to answer the hypotheses that were originally formulated in the evaluation, and still allow the opportunity to elaborate new questions. Facing this argument, Jensen et al¹⁰ discuss aspects to be observed in order to preserve the objectivity of the interviews. According to the authors, the interview needs to be coordinated to maintain the focus of the study, with the idea that the interviewer can explore each thematic block and their topics in an objective way.

This makes us reflect on the need for the researcher to have experience in conducting interviews. This question, raised by Wengraf¹¹, which highlights the importance of the practice of interviewing, which will permit the construction of innovative organization methods for the discourse through the training of the interviewer and the team in order to consolidate the recording and presentation of the interviews.

Regarding the need for innovation in terms of the methods used for the implementation of the interviews, one may conclude that it is worth the effort to refine our methodological structure so that new processes can determine a way of constructing the interviews that facilitate the register, the comparison, and the analysis of the data.

Considering these questions, James et al¹² discuss the methodological implications of using e-mail as an instrument for interviews. Even though the use of e-mail raises the question of affecting control inside the interview process, the authors recognize the credibility of studies that use e-mail for interviews, especially in obtaining reflexive and descriptive data at a distance. Moreover, Crilly et al¹³ propose the inclusion of visual stimuli as complementary elements to the conventional stimuli of the interview. The adoption of this strategy intends to strongly encourage the interviewees since this might not be easily attained with a strictly verbal strategy.

Inside a new vision of qualitative research, Rey¹⁴ argues that it is important to consider the understanding of subjectivity and the personal interaction in the processes of qualitative information construction. In this per spective, Watson⁴ understands the construction of the interview as being the product of the collaboration between the interviewer and the interviewee, and also considers the interviewees as active agents in the interview. On this subject, Rubin et al¹⁵ explain that to obtain rich, detailed, in-depth information in the interviews, one must go to great lengths to expose the details of the different data that were collected in such a way that conflicts are identified. Moreover, the authors alert about the need to certify that the whole gamut of questions made during the interview supply all of the answers that the investigator needs.

In this context, we must reflect to make sure that samples in qualitative research are representative. Minayo³ states that data collection should be done until there is an information overlap, which can generate a large quantity of data. This is necessary because "even though experiences seem to be unique to the individual, the representations of such experiences do not arise from individual minds, to some extent, they are the result of social processes" ^16:72. This means that it is necessary to be careful to perceive when the common topics begin to appear and what the saturation point of the meaning involved is. This is the moment in which the researcher should end the interview and confirm his understanding of the phenomenon.

This large quantity of dense data that qualitative methods tend to generate create a need to perfect instruments to organize the discourse so that analyses involving a larger number of interviews can be proposed2. As such, it is necessary to consider some aspects: in the first place, the relevance that the investigator assumes at the time of recording the discourse from the interview, and, in second place, the technical and operational difficulties underlying the realization of qualitative research when faced with dense complex depositions.

We recognize, however, the need to present a methodological proposal that allows the researcher to continue on to the organization of the discourses in such a way as to facilitate at the time of recording and standardizing the texts and at the time of analyzing the content of the interviews.

 

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The reflection about the problems faced by the researcher, as an active subject in the organization of discourse, brought about the need to elaborate a technique that would make the recording of discourse in a standardized way easier. In the proposed technique, the idea is that the topics can be presented in a way that favors the narrative unfolding of the discourse, with the aim that it may be recorded in such a way that a clear and coherent structural sequence is presented.

During the interview, important data can be lost and so it is necessary to create adequate ways of recording the discourse during the process of transcribing the interview and in organizing the texts². It is not always necessary to record and transcribe the whole interview literally. First, since recording can inhibit the interviewees and, as Lefèvre et al² indicate, the atmosphere of the interviews should be as informal as possible so that the interviewee is allowed to speak freely about the proposed topic. Second, a lot of time is spent on the complete transcription of the recordings.

When organizing discursive data, it is a good idea to proceed to the recording of the answers, selecting segments or fragments of the discourse that are considered more relevant, separating them from the other parts that are considered irrelevant for the goal of the study. Given the quantity of qualitative information that results from the discourse obtained through the interviews, it is essential that one prepare data for analysis, transcribing the more relevant information.

This process of transcribing interviews should happen in such a way that one can determine a way of constructing the interviews with the aim of facilitating the organization and that permits the standardized recording of the discourse, which should cause similar interviews to be constructed.

In operational terms, Standardized Discourse Recording Model, unfolds in the following phases: elaboration of a script that guides the interview; preparation of the material to facilitate the recording of discourse, and systematization of interviews in a textual form through recording of narratives in a systematized way. This process of constructing the texts - through an alignment in the dynamics of the discourse - makes it possible to find a logic that structures each piece of the registration of the discourse.

The research protocol, titled Physical Education and Health Education in Public Schools of Dourados' City - MS, was submitted and approved by the research ethics committee of the Centro Universitário Grande Dourados - MS. The tree interviews presented as example to utilize the methodology was firstly analyzed in the context of a dissertation of Master Degree¹⁷.

First Phase: Script Elaboration

According to Gressler¹⁸, Rudio¹⁹, and Minayo³, the interview, considered as the art of asking questions, consists of a conversation that is oriented by a defined objective, and for such, the building of an outline for the interview that facilitates, amplifies, and makes the communication more profound will serve as an instrument to guide a conversation with an end in mind.

In view of the extensive quantity of material that is generated by qualitative research, be careful about the construction of the instruments for qualitative data collection. Seidman20 argues that the use of a script will allow logical flow of ideas, serving as a guide for conversation. Its importance is demonstrated when one considers the thematic blocks and topics containing open questions with indepth meanings, instead of questions that are clearly formulated.

According to Minayo³, only some items considered essential for the design of the object in relation to empirical reality should be included. The author puts forth that each question raised should: a) be part of the design of the object and that everything should go in the direction of giving shape and content to the interview; b) permit communication to be broad and deep; c) contribute to the emergence of the view, values, and relevance, from the point of view of interlocutors, regarding facts and relationships that compose the object.

In this sense, it is understood that there should be direct contact between the researcher and the interviewee (without intermediaries) and that the interviewer should feel comfortable with the elaborated outline in such a way that the questions are asked in a good atmosphere, which will permit that the obscure points in the answers be clarified during the interview.

Second Phase: Material for Discourse Recording

Inside the spectrum of reactions that should be included in the interview, which has the intention of obtaining information by using senses while capturing certain aspects of reality, the posture of the interviewer needs to be coordinated in order to maintain focus and get the desired information. In this context, Thiollent21 refers to "floating attention", a place where one should look for meaning in silence, hesitations, and intonation. The interviewer should allow the interviewee to associate and establish his own flow of ideas, and the interviewer needs to be careful to capture the information without making the interviewee wait for the following question while the answer to the previous one is being written down.

In this sense, Rudio¹⁹ and Lodi²² call attention to the fact that the registration of information should be done during the inter view, paying special attention to the importance of noting expressions and behavioral aspects of the interviewee. Special care should be taken so that this procedure does not cause the interviewee to be inhibited nor oblige him to cut his line of thinking.

In this way, it is necessary to have a plan for recording the interview, so that at the time it is being conducted, a logical structure, based on previously structured script, guides each part of the recording of discourse (text). This is made possible through preparation of material that facilitates the registration of speech according to the order in which the questions on the script were raised to guarantee that interviews be constructed in a similar way and that necessary information not be left out.

Guided by the script, the interviewer should organize a 3 x 5 card for each question to be asked with sufficient space to record the answers of the interviewees. This procedure will permit the visualization of responses of different interviewees in the same document, which will also permit one to verify if all of the topics on the script were dealt with during the interview and if all of the interviewees answered each question.

As such, this material will make the organization of the data obtained from the interview easier. It also allows for recording of the speech (discourse) in a unique sequence for all of interviews, which also guarantees the compilation of a group of defined homogenous textual documents to be analyzed.

With the aim of making the data analysis easier through the register of speech in an ordered fashion and the construction of interviews with similar content, the interviewer should have a number of cards available that, elaborated according to the interview script, will help in the Standardized Discourse Recording Model and, consequently, in the organization and in the standardized construction of the interviews (texts).

Third Phase: Construction of the Text from the Interviews

The use of a script allowed for a logical chain of ideas and served as a guide for the recording of discourse with the material prepared to facilitate the construction of texts that will result from the interviews. In this phase, when the script has been defined (First Phase) and the speech (discourse) that was written down on all of the cards in order to be able to organize the data has been transcribed (Second Phase), one can proceed to the construction of the interviews in such a way as to guarantee a unique sequence for each text.

On this subject, Bardin²³ alerts to the fact that it is necessary to proceed to the construction of a body, a defined group of documents to be analyzed. According to Franco24 and Bardin23, the documents to be analyzed should be homogeneous, obeying precise criteria and not be too limited such that it extrapolates the defined criteria and objectives, especially when the aim is to obtain global results and/or compare individual responses to the same question. In this way, the documents to be analyzed should be prepared, and the interviews should be constructed with the recording of the discourse in a standardized way.

For this, the organized material (3 x 5 cards) with discourses of all interviewees on the questions that were organized from the script will facilitate the recording. This material will allow the individually transcribed discourse of participants to be recorded in a systematic way, which will allow the organization of the extracted text of discourse in such a way as to construct similar interviews and homogeneous content.

 

AN EXAMPLE OF STANDARDIZED DISCOURSE RECORDING MODEL

Here is a presentation of a study done by Mustafa¹⁷ in which the methodology of Standardized Discourse Recording Model was applied. In this qualitative study, he wanted to identify how the physical education teachers from public schools in a city in the Central-West region of Brazil (Dourados, state of Mato Grosso do Sul; population: 183,096; area: 4,086 km²) thought about aspects related to health education and how they acted in the health promotion. Thirty teachers were questioned with interviews that were constructed according to the Standardized Discourse Recording Model technique, and for the qualitative analysis, all of material collected was analyzed according to a group of broadly applicable techniques called Content Analysis.

Bardin²³, states that the starting point for content analysis is a narrative, which necessarily, expresses a meaning and a sense, allowing the researcher to make inferences about any of communication elements.

To demonstrate the application of the Standardized Discourse Recording Model technique, we will present the discourse recording of three interviews as an example, showing a clear and coherent sequential structure made possible with the standardized procedures that unfold in the three phases specified below for the construction of interviews according to this type of technique.

First Phase: Script interview for the teacher

a) Personal da data ta and da data ta on pr of ofessional essional background: age, sex, year of graduation, place (city/state), highest degree, time working in school physical education.

b) Health education, content, methodological procedures, strategies, and proposals.

1. What do you understand by health education?

2. Do you apply contents related to health in your classes? Why?

3. What methodological procedures do you use and what methodological strategies have you developed with the purpose to introduce contents of health education?

4. What proposals would you make regarding education in order to change attitudes related to the health education procedures in schools?

Second Phase: Preparation of material to facilitate the recording of discourse (Cards)

Third Phase: construction of the interviews (texts) through the discourse recording in a standardized model

Interview 1:

I am 43 years old; I graduated in 2000, in this city, and I have a specialization in school education. I have been working in school physical education for 4 years and.(silence).I worry a lot about the health of my students.(silence).I think that this subject has everything to offer in the area of health; they go handin- hand.(showing concern).the teachers should be up to date to know how to act. We.(showing some hesitation).should know how to choose, to work on what is useful for society. I know that we can, as t e a c h e r s . ( s i l e n c e ) . a s educators.(silence).contribute towards this. For me, I think that.(silence).education for health is something that has the aim of improving health through education by preventing future health problems. Yes.(showing concern).since we teachers, as educators, should work on concepts related to health as a contribution.(showing enthusiasm).because health is something that can be achieved through education! Procedures.(silence).all of the ones that are possible in order to comply with the proposal of the school as, for example, strategies to improve nutrition, posture, interest in physical activity, dance, theatre, music, and research about these topics. I say the possible ones because it is not easy to introduce these items in practice.(showing concern).the students already show up with the idea that physical education is only for play. The students, as such.(showing concern).have a lot to learn. We should do more than just do it, I know that many points can improve to help like that.(silence).I'm sure that one that would help would be the opening of education. Opening for extension courses.(silence).propose activities that are open to the community about nutrition and posture for example.(showing concern).so that there could be an improvement in public health as well.

Interview 2:

I have worked in the school for 2 years, since I was 23. I graduated here in Dourados in 2002. I did a specialization in teaching methodology! I wish I had specialized in an area related to sports or school education.(rising intonation).I have always been involved with sports! I.(showing enthusiasm).see spor ts as being beneficial for the body and for health.(showing concern).but not competitive sports! Not only sports at school, but an active life. Education for health for me.(silence).would be exactly like this. Look: educating by teaching health through spor ts (raising intonation). Oh! Of course.(silence).I do work on health education! Because through sports you can work on the health of the body. To be able to.(showing hesitation).try at least, I believe, you have to believe.(silence).you have to give priority to the teaching of health inside the activities, like games.(rising intonation).from drills, dance, music, calisthenics, and other activities.(silence).theory, in class, in books.and in health journals. But it's not always like this.(showing excitement).the physical education teachers.(rising intonation).should encourage the students to practice physical activities to improve their health, making them aware of the benefits that it offers.

Interview 3:

I am already over 40; I will be 44 next week; I have been in the school since 1982. I started young; I graduated in 1981 in Jacarezinho, PR, and I specialized in school education. I know that.(silence).as someone who works with teaching.(showing concern).I have a responsibility to contribute to the general health of the population. I think about education for health and.(silence).physical education for health! Health and physical education are closely related! Anyway.in the curriculum for this subject, we have the responsibility of dealing with the question of education for health.(showing excitement).this is educating to improve the health of the population at large. This is worrisome.(rising intonation and loudness).it demands effort, but I can't imagine anything more important that this to be worked on! Yes, I do work on education and health! Because it is up to the school to promote the interaction between health and education.(showing enthusiasm).working on dignity and respect in physical education. To be able to.(showing hesitation).try at least, I believe, you have to believe.(silence).you have to give priority to the teaching of health inside the activities, like games.(rising intonation).from drills, dance, music, calisthenics, and other activities.(silence).theory, in class, in books.and in health journals. Habits can be changed, teaching how to have a better quality of life and not practicing activities that shouldn't even be done later on! This is important, something that's not normal, but that is.(showing some concern).that should show up in the teachers' procedures, using journals and films about healthy behaviors so that the students can improve their life styles.

When dealing with the analysis of the texts from interviews, one can observe that the speech is organized using a structural logic that assures the homogeneity of the information, which makes the data analysis easier.

 

CONCLUSION

When considering the great quantity of dense data that qualitative methods tend to generate, and having the technical and operational difficulties that occur with qualitative research in mind when analyzing these dense complex discourses, Lefèvre et al² raise the point that the instruments used in organizing discourse in qualitative research need to be improved.

The organization of discourse with the technique of Standardized Discourse Recording Model makes the recording and standardization of the texts to be analyzed easier. This standardized procedure permits the unfolding of the discourse, recorded in a clear and coherent structural sequence, selecting excerpts or pieces of the discourse considered relevant to the object of the study. Besides this, it determines a way of building the interviews that makes the organization easier and causes the interviews to have similar contents.

As one can see, the proposed technique - through a dynamic alignment of speech registration - creates a standardized process for the construction of the interview texts and allows one to find a structural logic for each piece of the discourse that was recorded, which certainly makes the analysis of the collected data easier.

Faced with the need to improve the methods used to conduct interviews and, mainly, faced with the technical and operational difficulties that the qualitative methods tend to create, we must highlight the process of recording interviews.

The methodological procedure presented here, called Standardized Discourse Recording Model, intends to systematize the textual interview building in such a way as to make the recording, comparison, and analysis of the data that resulted from the dense complex discourse easier. With the systematization of this procedure, we believe that we are assisting in the work of the qualitative researcher to record the thoughts and the quality of the expression of human subjectivity, which can only be done through qualitative research.

Among the manifestations of human behavior, verbal expression, its enunciations and messages, are seen as essential. As such, the improvement of the methods used to construct the interviews, which makes the recording of the discourse easier, opens new perspectives that offer practical tools for the qualitative researcher.

When the researcher is trying to record various forms that can hide the sense attributed to the events of life, the relevance of social research becomes evident. In this sense, from operational point of view, we highlight the impor tance of creating techniques that make the recording, comparison and analysis of the data easier.

As a new procedure, it is important that the Standardized Discourse Recording Model could be used in futures researches to be validated and to contribute with the investigators whom adopt the qualitative research methodology.

 

References

1. Kvale S. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London (UK): Sage; 1996.

2. Lefèvre F, Lefèvre AM. Discurso do sujeito coletivo: um novo enfoque em pesquisa qualitativa (desdobramentos). 2º ed. Caxias do Sul (RS): EDUC; 2005.

3. Minayo MCS. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. 7ª ed. São Paulo: Hucitec; 2000.

4. Watson C. 'Unreliable narrators? Inconsistency (and some inconstancy) in interviews'. Qual Health Res 2006 mar; 6(3): 367-84.

5. Lather P. How research can be made to mean: feminist ethnography at the limits of representation. In: Ibanez-Carrasco F, Meiners E, editors. Public acts: disruptive readings on curriculum and research. New York (NY): Routledge; 2004.

6. Rosa MVFPC, Arnoldi MAGC. A entrevista na pesquisa qualitativa: mecanismos para avaliação de resultados. Belo Horizonte(MG): Autêntica; 2006.

7. Denzin NK. O planejamento da pesquisa qualitativa: teorias e abordagens. 2ª ed. Porto Alegre(RS): Artmed; 2006.

8. Chizzotti A. Pesquisa em ciências humanas e sociais. 7ª ed. São Paulo (SP): Cortez; 2005.

9. Flick U. Uma introdução à pesquisa qualitativa. 2ª ed. Porto Alegre (RS): Bookman; 2004.

10 Jensen C, Lauritsen P. Qualitative research as partial connection: bypassing the power-knowledge nexus. Qual Health Res 2005 May; 5(1): 59-77.

11. Wengraf T. Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. London (UK): Sage; 2001.

12. James N, Busher H. Credibility, authenticity and voice: dilemmas in online interviewing, Qual Health Res 2006 mar; 6(3): 403-20.

13. Crilly N, Blackwell AF, Clarkson PJ. Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qual Health Res 2006 mar; 6(3): 341-66.

14. Rey FG. Pesquisa qualitativa e subjetividade: os processos de construção da informação. São Paulo (SP): Thomson Pioneira; 2005.

15. Rubin IS, Rubin HJ. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing Ddta. London (UK): Sage; 2004.

16. Bauer MW, Gaskell G. Pesquisa qualitativa com texto, imagem e som. Petrópolis (RJ): Vozes; 2002.

17. Mustafa ZH. A educação física e a educação para a saúde nas escolas públicas da cidade de Dourados, MS.[dissertação de mestrado]. Brasília (DF): Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde/UnB; 2006.

18. Gressler LA. Introdução à pesquisa: projetos e relatórios. São Paulo (SP): Loyola; 2003.

19. Rudio FV Introdução ao projeto de pesquisa científica. 31ª ed. São Paulo (SP): Vozes; 2003.

20. Seidman I. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York (USA): Teachers College Press; 1998.

21. Thiollent M. Metodologia da pesquisa-ação. 14ª ed. São Paulo(SP): Cortez; 2005.

22. Lodi JB. A entrevista: teoria e prática. São Paulo (SP): Pioneira; 1994.

23. Bardin L. Análise de conteúdo. 3ª ed. Lisboa (PT): Ed 70; 2004.

24. Franco MLPB. Análise do conteúdo. Brasília (DF): Plano Ed; 2003.

 

 

Recebido em 16/05/2007
Reapresentado em 07/09/2007
Aprovado em 10/10/2007