Plethora or paucity: A systematic search and bibliometric study of the application and design of qualitative methods in nursing research 2008-2010 (original) (raw)

The structure of qualitatives studies

Ciênc. saúde coletiva , 2021

The lack of knowledge in the biomedical literature regarding the validity of qualitative studies might be related to the lower number of qualitative studies that have been published. The criticisms range from a lack of theoretical depth to the superficial discussions of empirical findings. The aim of this study was to explore the bibliometric entities and the trends in the structure of qualitative research in the biomedical literature. A bibliometric analysis and mapping of the biomedical literature were used. The number of studies selected was 1,725. The heath themes with the most publications included Health Management (12%) and Women’s Health (9.8%), while the authors of the studies had academic affiliation in 76 different countries. The sample sizes were between 11 and 20 participants (27.13%) and the Grounded Theory framework (9.04%) stood out. The improved structuring of a qualitative research extends the effective communication between health providers and researchers, and support in the management of clinical situations

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.

The ‘middle bit’: how to appraise qualitative research

British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 2016

The Nursing & Midwifery Council (2015) states that all registered nurses must 'practice in-line with best available evidence'. Whilst there are clinical guidelines that are used to inform clinical practice, these often apply to medical rather than nursing interventions. Accordingly nurses must develop their critical appraisal skills to enable them to evaluate the available published research and consider to what extent findings might inform their clinical practice. A starting point for this process is an understanding of the characteristics of qualitative research and the key concepts that can guide the appraisal of a qualitative study. This paper provides and overview of the key points and frameworks for consideration in appraising qualitative evidence.

Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations

This paper focuses on the question of sampling (or selection of cases) in qualitative research. Although the literature includes some very useful discussions of qualitative sampling strategies, the question of sampling often seems to receive less attention in methodological discussion than questions of how data is collected or is analysed. Decisions about sampling are likely to be important in many qualitative studies (although it may not be an issue in some research). There are varying accounts of the principles applicable to sampling or case selection. Those who espouse 'theoretical sampling', based on a 'grounded theory' approach, are in some ways opposed to those who promote forms of 'purposive sampling' suitable for research informed by an existing body of social theory. Diversity also results from the many different methods for drawing purposive samples which are applicable to qualitative research. We explore the value of a framework suggested by Miles and Huberman [Miles, M., Huberman,, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London.], to evaluate the sampling strategies employed in three examples of research by the authors. Our examples comprise three studies which respectively involve selection of: 'healing places'; rural places which incorporated national anti-malarial policies; young male interviewees, identified as either chronically ill or disabled. The examples are used to show how in these three studies the (sometimes conflicting) requirements of the different criteria were resolved, as well as the potential and constraints placed on the research by the selection decisions which were made. We also consider how far the criteria Miles and Huberman suggest seem helpful for planning 'sample' selection in qualitative research. Abstract PURPOSE We wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria. METHODS We identified published journal articles discussing criteria for rigorous research using standard search strategies then examined reference sections of relevant journal articles to identify books and book chapters on this topic. A cross-publication content analysis allowed us to identify criteria and understand the beliefs that shape them. RESULTS Seven criteria for good qualitative research emerged: (1) carrying out ethical research; (2) importance of the research; (3) clarity and coherence of the research report; (4) use of appropriate and rigorous methods; (5) importance of reflexivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verification or reliability. General agreement was observed across publications on the first 4 quality dimensions. On the last 3, important divergent perspectives were observed in how these criteria should be applied to qualitative research, with differences based on the paradigm embraced by the authors. CONCLUSION Qualitative research is not a unified field. Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts and are likely to embrace a generic set of criteria rather than those relevant to the particular qualitative approach proposed or reported. Reviewers and researchers need to be aware of this tendency and educate health care researchers about the criteria appropriate for evaluating qualitative research from within the theoretical and methodological framework from which it emerges.

Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2006

Journal of Advanced Nursing 53(3), 304-310 Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research Aim. In this paper, I call into question the widely-held assumption of a single, more or less unified paradigm of 'qualitative research' whose methodologies share certain epistemological and ontological characteristics, and explore the implications of this position for judgements about the quality of research studies. Background. After a quarter of a century of debate in nursing about how best to judge the quality of qualitative research, we appear to be no closer to a consensus, or even to deciding whether it is appropriate to try to achieve a consensus. The literature on this issue can be broadly divided into three positions: those writers who wish qualitative research to be judged according to the same criteria as quantitative research; those who believe that a different set of criteria is required; and those who question the appropriateness of any predetermined criteria for judging qualitative research. Of the three positions, the second appears to have generated most debate, and a number of different frameworks and guidelines for judging the quality of qualitative research have been devised over recent years. Discussion. The second of the above positions is rejected in favour of the third. It argues that, if there is no unified qualitative research paradigm, then it makes little sense to attempt to establish a set of generic criteria for making quality judgements about qualitative research studies. We need either to acknowledge that the commonly perceived quantitative-qualitative dichotomy is in fact a continuum which requires a continuum of quality criteria, or to recognize that each study is individual and unique, and that the task of producing frameworks and predetermined criteria for assessing the quality of research studies is futile. Conclusion. Some of the implications of this latter position are explored, including the requirement that all published research reports should include a reflexive research diary.

The variety of qualitative research. Part one: introduction to the problem

Nurse Education Today, 1997

For a number of reasons qualitative techniques have taken firm root in nursing research generally and are of growing importance in research undertaken by nurse educators. But there is a great deal of confusion about the nature of the data which are produced by qualitative research, the way such data must be handled, and the use to which such data can be put. The confusion often results from a failure to differentiate between several orientations to qualitative data. Positivist research may use qualitative data (something not always recognized). It presupposes that there is some underlying, true, unequivocal reality, and a theory covering this is to be sought by the research. There must be evidence of validity-in the sense of a match between the data and the reality they are supposed to reveal. Non-positivist research is of a number of kinds, despite often being treated as unified. These will be treated in the second part of this paper.

Identifying Validity in Qualitative Research: A Literature Review

2018

This paper explores multiple articles relating to qualitative research. Qualitative research has seen several transformation that aim to support contributions for this research development. As research, using a qualitative methodology rises to prevalence, this paper explores industry and academia use of this methodology. The paper review research based in the field of healthcare and social work. After analysis, the review of literature shows that a majority qualitative research are within the field healthcare (Johnson, 1999). The research conducted embraces a diverse collection of approaches to inquiry intended to generate knowledge actually grounded in human experience. The literature review also addressed “rigor” as a standard for valid research, and the impending presumption for flexibility as called for by pundits against qualitative research paradigm. It was argued that this call for rigidity could threaten the innovativeness and hence the meaning and quality of a qualitative r...

The challenge for qualitative research in nursing.

British Journal of Community Nursing , 1998

A common consensus regarding the way in which qualitative and quantitative approaches to research are viewed within nursing has existed unchanged for many years, i.e. the quantitive or positivistic research paradigm has traditionally been viewed as being more scientific, logical, rigorous and superior to the naturalistic/qualitative approach. Indeed, there is little evidence to refute the suggestion that these two approaches are perceived as being separate to, and independent of, each other. This article suggests that this long-standing division has served to create many of the problems and barriers surrounding qualitative research in nursing. One of the main reasons for this division results from the inherent interpretation of each approach and also the perceptions of nurse researchers. Qualitative research is traditionally viewed as the weaker of the two approaches and therefore qualitative researchers are often left to actively promote the standing and credibility of this research paradigm. This article aims to identify how nurse researchers can strive to resolve the imbalance that frequently exists between these two paradigms and, consequently, redress any related misconceptions within the nursing profession.

Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2003

emphasizing the important differences between the two paradigms; that which renders them distinctive. To acknowledge incompatibilities and their source is not to deny the enormous potential of mixed method designs. However, it is important that we avoid producing a homogenized and bland synthesis, which overlooks incompatibilities rather than developing solutions, compromises or simply deciding that it is most appropriate to pursue parallel strategies. There may, then, be limits to the rapprochement between quantitative and qualitative models. The issue of systematic review of qualitative research throws many such incompatibilities into sharp focus. Whilst the drive to incorporate qualita