scholarly journals Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drishti Yadav
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Evaluative Criteria ◽  
Rigorous Research ◽  
Good Research ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractThis review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Evaluating Qualitative Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeasik Cho
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
The Past ◽  
Grant Proposals

This book provides the qualitative research community with some insight on how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research. This topic has gained little attention during the past few decades. We, qualitative researchers, read journal articles, serve on masters’ and doctoral committees, and also make decisions on whether conference proposals, manuscripts, or large-scale grant proposals should be accepted or rejected. It is assumed that various perspectives or criteria, depending on various paradigms, theories, or fields of discipline, have been used in assessing the quality of qualitative research. Nonetheless, until now, no textbook has been specifically devoted to exploring theories, practices, and reflections associated with the evaluation of qualitative research. This book constructs a typology of evaluating qualitative research, examines actual information from websites and qualitative journal editors, and reflects on some challenges that are currently encountered by the qualitative research community. Many different kinds of journals’ review guidelines and available assessment tools are collected and analyzed. Consequently, core criteria that stand out among these evaluation tools are presented. Readers are invited to join the author to confidently proclaim: “Fortunately, there are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called ‘scientific research.’ ”

scholarly journals Validity in Qualitative Research: A Processual Approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo Hayashi ◽  
Gustavo Abib ◽  
Norberto Hoppen
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
One Step ◽  
Good Research ◽  
Quality Of Research ◽  
Processual Approach

Validity and reliability of research and its results are important elements to provide evidence of the quality of research in the organizational field. However, validity is better evidenced in quantitative studies than in qualitative research studies. As there is diversity within qualitative research methods and techniques, there is no universally accepted criteria to assess validity in qualitative studies; its usefulness is also questioned. Therefore, in this paper, we argue that qualitative research should adopt a processual view approach of validity since it should not be the product of a single test or just one step in the research. Processual validity both supports good research and helps in its reflection and guidance. To illustrate our approach, we present the processual approach adopted by one of the coauthors during the development of a research project. We highlight the validity assurance activities for both ex ante and ex post research, peer review and participation in an international conference, which corroborated the quality of the processual approach and the results that were obtained.

scholarly journals The Quality of the Evidence: Qualitative Research in Trauma Psychology

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Mattar ◽  
Eric B. Vogel
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Outcome Studies ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Disaster Mental Health ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
Rigorous Research ◽  
Mental Health Literature

The efficacy of evidence-based practices with underprivileged groups and non-Western cultures has been a subject of controversy in the trauma psychology and disaster mental health literature. There has been a debate as to whether evidence based assessments and interventions work equally well for diverse populations. Resolving this controversy has been difficult in part because of the methodological challenges involved in the study of cultural mediation of psychological phenomena. The authors argue that adding qualitative research to the evidence base supporting trauma treatments, as a matter of standard practice, can fill this need. Qualitative research can provide a rigorous research basis for the identification of cultural factors to be accounted for in quantitative outcome studies, as well as a rigorous means of understanding the real-world meaning of quantitative outcome findings. This would address Evidence-based practices (EBP) advocates’ concerns about the unscientific nature of the multicultural literature’s critique, and multiculturalism advocate’s concerns about the lack of contextualism in EBP outcome studies of trauma treatments.

scholarly journals Calling and Comradeship

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myra van den Goor ◽  
Tanya Bondarouk
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Relational Values ◽  
The Individual ◽  
High Level ◽  
Shed Light

Patient safety heavily relies on doctors performing to the best of their abilities, delivering high quality of patientcare. However, changing market forces and increasing bureaucracy challenge physicians in their performance. Despite the dynamic conditions they experience, the majority performs on a high level. What exactly drives these doctors? Answering this question will shed light on how to best support doctors to be the engaged healthcare professionals that society wants and needs them to be. So patients are ensured safe and high quality of care. This chapter dips deeper into what primarily drives doctors, thus we turned to doctors themselves for answers. Being interested in their perceptions, feelings, behaviour, relations to, and interactions with, each other, this chapter relies heavily on qualitative research involving around 1000 hospital-based physicians. Conclusively, doctors can only truly blossom in an environment that stimulates their calling and that breathes a comradeship mindset, where sharing is about caring and peer-support is felt. It’s alarming that these essential humanistic and relational values are supressed by today’s more business-like climate in healthcare. Curtailing what primarily inspires doctors will eventually lead to doctors no longer having the time, energy and motivation to deliver the best possible patientcare. To restore the balance, we provide recommendations on the individual-, group-, and organizational level.

scholarly journals Naturalistic Inquiry in E-Learning Research

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley Agostinho
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Naturalistic Inquiry ◽  
Rigorous Research ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Learning Research

In this article, the author explains how and why one particular qualitative research approach, the naturalistic inquiry paradigm, was implemented in an e-learning research study that investigated the use of the World Wide Web technology in higher education. A framework is presented that situates the research study within the qualitative research literature. The author then justifies how the study was compliant with naturalistic inquiry and concludes by presenting a model for judging the quality of such research. The purpose of this article is to provide an example of how naturalistic inquiry can be implemented in e-learning research that can serve as a guide for researchers undertaking this form of qualitative inquiry. As such, the focus of the article is to illustrate how methodological issues pertaining to naturalistic inquiry were addressed and justified to represent a rigorous research approach rather than presenting the results of the research study.

scholarly journals Quality guidelines for mixed methods research in intervention studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gizela Kopač ◽  
Valentina Hlebec
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Quality Guidelines ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Among researchers' many investigations of the use of mixed methods in intervention studies, more recent discussions especially concern the roles played in such studies by qualitative research, intervention phases, procedures, and integration (Gallo and Lee, 2016; Woolcock, 2018; O'Cathain, 2018; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). One can find the basic procedures to follow while realizing a mixed methods experimental design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018), practical guidance (O'Cathain, 2018) for using qualitative research with a randomized control trial (RCT), and a mixed methods appraisal tool for appraising the methodological quality of RCTs, non-randomized studies, and mixed methods – MMAT (Hong et al., 2018). However, no model exists to assess the quality of mixed methods research in intervention studies, particularly experimental and quasi-experimental research in complex interventions. Our aim is to develop such a theoretical model. Today, the number of interventions relying on mixed methods methodology is growing exponentially. A theoretical model is called for to help assess the quality of mixed methods research in intervention studies, and in this respect our aim is to: (1) provide an overview of guidelines, recommendations, models, and quality criteria for mixed methods research; (2) overview the guidelines for intervention studies; (3) give a summary of guidelines and models for mixed methods research in such studies; (4) evaluate the mentioned guidelines, models, and quality criteria; (5) identify and describe the key elements of these guidelines, models, and quality criteria; and (6) develop a theoretical model for assessing the quality of mixed methods research designs used in intervention studies.

Verifying rigor: analyzing qualitative research in international marketing

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitish Singh ◽  
Mamoun Benmamoun ◽  
Elizabeth Meyr ◽  
Ramazan Hamza Arikan
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
International Marketing ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Past

PurposeThere has been a growing call regarding broad criteria for assessing qualitative methods' reliability and validity in international marketing (IM) research. In response, this study synthesizes the past literature to present an overarching, yet adaptable, trustworthiness verification framework for assessing the rigor of various qualitative methods used in IM.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on qualitative research from various disciplines. It uses content analysis to examine how trustworthiness is conceptualized in qualitative studies in International Marketing Review (IMR) from 2005 to 2019.FindingsThe analysis reveals that strategies to ensure rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative research in IMR are partially applied. There remain gaps in implementing quality criteria across the trustworthiness dimensions of credibility, transferability, dependability, conformability and ethics.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper highlights the importance of incorporating strategies for assessing the quality of qualitative research in IM research. Since the analysis only focused on IMR, future research should explore and test the framework in other IM and business journals to reach a broader consensus in assessing qualitative studies' rigor.Originality/valueIM researchers have yet to develop a consensus regarding broad criteria for assessing qualitative methods' reliability and validity. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.

scholarly journals Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) Review Process Does Not Use Checklists

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 819-821
Author(s):  
Janice Morse
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Qualitative Health Research

Using checklists in manuscripts are perceived to indicate quality, transparency, and rigor. Generally, these checklists consist of a list of all of the strategies that may be used to ensure rigor and transparency. Beside each item, there is usually a box to check (or tick) to indicate whether a component is present, and a space on which to note the page each item is listed in the manuscript. Some of these forms also include space for the author to make brief comments to the reviewer. The intent is that the checklist guides the review process to ensure that all components are present in the article, and therefore, that the article is solid enough to publish. However, these checklists consist only of technical/mechanical management of the creation and sorting of data. These lists ignore the value of the product of the research: They do not address the originality, the substance, the contribution, and the potential results to the actual topic—which is after all the purpose of the project itself. Paradoxically, these checklist reviews are undermining the quality of qualitative inquiry. In seeking quality, the criteria for systematic reviews, clinical trials, and evidence have spilled over to represent quality criteria for all qualitative research. They are becoming commonplace for evaluating qualitative research by journal editors, directing the review process, and subsequent evaluation of the research. Of greatest concern is that checklists items are being used by authors themselves to represent their actual text (e.g., “data were saturated”), and the items for completing these forms are read by the reviewers and editors in lieu of reading the article itself (e.g., for signs of “saturation”). Furthermore, the use of these criteria by authors/researchers to guide the conduct of their research, yet meeting all these criteria, whether relevant or pertinent or necessary for their project, and may even invalidate the findings. In this way, these criteria are redefining processes of qualitative inquiry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document