Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research (original) (raw)
Related papers
Nurse Education Today, 2011
Qualitative methodology has increased in application and acceptability in all research disciplines. In nursing, it is appropriate that a plethora of qualitative methods can be found as nurses pose real-world questions to clinical, cultural and ethical issues of patient care (Johnson, 2007 and Long and Johnson, 2007), yet the methods nurses readily use in pursuit of answers remains under intense scrutiny. One of the problems with qualitative methodology for nursing research is its place in the hierarchy of evidence (HOE); another is its comparison to the positivist constructs of what constitutes good research and the measurement of qualitative research against this. In order to position and strengthen its evidence base, nursing may well seek to distance itself from a qualitative perspective and utilise methods at the top of the HOE; yet given the relation of qualitative methods to nursing this would constrain rather than broaden the profession in search of answers and an evidence base. The comparison between qualitative and quantitative can be both mutually exclusive and rhetorical, by shifting the comparison this study takes a more reflexive position and critically appraises qualitative methods against the standards set by qualitative researchers. By comparing the design and application of qualitative methods in nursing over a two year period, the study examined how qualitative stands up to independent rather than comparative scrutiny. For the methods, a four-step mixed methods approach newly constructed by the first author was used to define the scope of the research question and develop inclusion criteria. 2. Synthesis tables were constructed to organise data, 3. Bibliometrics configured data. 4. Studies selected for inclusion in the review were critically appraised using a critical interpretive synthesis (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006). The paper outlines the research process as well as findings. Results showed of the 240 papers analysed, 27% used ad hoc or no references to qualitative; methodological terms such as thematic analysis or constant comparative methods were used inconsistently; qualitative was a catch-all panacea rather than a methodology with well-argued terms or contextual definition.
Appraising the quality of qualitative research
Midwifery, 2006
In the process of undertaking a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies of free-standing midwife-led units, the authors of this paper encountered a number of methodologically and epistemologically unresolved issues. One of these related to the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. In an iterative approach to scoping this issue, we identified eight existing checklists and summary frameworks. Some of these publications were opinion based, and some involved a synthesis of pre-existing frameworks. None of them provide a clear map of the criteria used in all their reviewed papers, and of the commonalities and differences between them. We critically review these frameworks and conclude that, although they are epistemologically and theoretically dense, they are excessively detailed for most uses. In order to reach a workable solution to the problem of the quality assessment of qualitative research, the findings from these frameworks and checklists were mapped together. Using a technique we have termed a 'redundancy approach' to eliminate non-essential criteria, we developed our own summary framework. The final synthesis was achieved through reflexive debate and discussion. Aspects of this discussion are detailed here. The synthesis is clearly rooted in a subjectivist epistemology, which views knowledge as constructed and hermeneutic in intent, encompassing individual, cultural and structural representations of reality.
Quality assurance of qualitative research: a review of the discourse
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2011
Background: Increasing demand for qualitative research within global health has emerged alongside increasing demand for demonstration of quality of research, in line with the evidence-based model of medicine. In quantitative health sciences research, in particular clinical trials, there exist clear and widely-recognised guidelines for conducting quality assurance of research. However, no comparable guidelines exist for qualitative research and although there are long-standing debates on what constitutes 'quality' in qualitative research, the concept of 'quality assurance' has not been explored widely. In acknowledgement of this gap, we sought to review discourses around quality assurance of qualitative research, as a first step towards developing guidance. Methods: A range of databases, journals and grey literature sources were searched, and papers were included if they explicitly addressed quality assurance within a qualitative paradigm. A meta-narrative approach was used to review and synthesise the literature. Results: Among the 37 papers included in the review, two dominant narratives were interpreted from the literature, reflecting contrasting approaches to quality assurance. The first focuses on demonstrating quality within research outputs; the second focuses on principles for quality practice throughout the research process. The second narrative appears to offer an approach to quality assurance that befits the values of qualitative research, emphasising the need to consider quality throughout the research process. Conclusions: The paper identifies the strengths of the approaches represented in each narrative and recommend these are brought together in the development of a flexible framework to help qualitative researchers to define, apply and demonstrate principles of quality in their research.
Article Bridging Conceptions of Quality in Moments of Qualitative Research
2015
Quality assessment in qualitative research has been, and remains, a contentious issue. The qualitative literature contains a diversity of opinions on definitions of and criteria for quality. This article attempts to organize this diversity, drawing on several examples of existing quality criteria, into four main approaches: qualitative as quantitative criteria, paradigm-specific criteria, individualized assessment, and bridging criteria. These different approaches can be mapped onto the historical transitions, or moments, in qualitative research presented by Denzin and Lincoln and, as such, they are presented alongside the various criteria reviewed. Socio-political conditions that have led us to a fractured future, where the value and significance of qualitative work may be marginalized, support the adoption of bridging criteria. These broadly applicable criteria provide means to assess quality and can be flexibly applied among the diversity of qualitative approaches used by researc...
Notions of quality and standards for qualitative research reporting
International Journal of Nursing Practice, 2014
The utility of qualitative research findings in the health sciences has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly with the advent of qualitative systematic reviews in recent years. There has been a significant investment in the production of guidance to improve the reporting of quantitative research; however, comparatively little time has been spent on developing the same for qualitative research reporting. This paper sets out to examine the possibility of developing a framework for refereed journals to utilize when guiding authors on how to report the results of qualitative studies in the hope that this will improve the quality of reports and subsequently their inclusion in qualitative syntheses and guidelines to inform practice at the point of care.
Assessing Quality In Qualitative Research
BMJ, 2000
The demand for criteria of assessment for qualitative research arises in two contexts that are significantly different: for use within the research community; and for use by sponsors, funders, or users of research, many of whom will not be active researchers. 1
A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
Attributes of rigor and quality and suggested best practices for qualitative research design as they relate to the steps of designing, conducting, and reporting qualitative research in health professions educational scholarship are presented. A research question must be clear and focused and supported by a strong conceptual framework, both of which contribute to the selection of appropriate research methods that enhance trustworthiness and minimize researcher bias inherent in qualitative methodologies. Qualitative data collection and analyses are often modified through an iterative approach to answering the research question. Researcher reflexivity, essentially a researcher's insight into their own biases and rationale for decision-making as the study progresses, is critical to rigor. This article reviews common standards of rigor, quality scholarship criteria, and best practices for qualitative research from design through dissemination.
Issue of Quality in a Qualitative Research: An Overview
Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, 2015
The issues of quality in a qualitative research cannot be addressed by a single or constant method. It, however, may be judged through the aggregate of various perspectives such as "credibility," "dependability," "confirmability," "ethics" and so on which is the central focus of this paper. In a qualitative research, researchers often engage with flexible realities where the subjective views of respondents may shape the research frame and the whole process of an inquiry. In such a situation, quality issue is more pertinent as it deals with peoplr's everyday realitiy and subjective explanation of it. The study focuses on the issue of quality in a qualitative research and provides a middle way to deal with this issue in respect to the debates over it. Using secondary sources it provides a comprehensive idea for ensuring quality in a qualitative research.