|Year : 2020 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 76-80
Quality in qualitative research: An overview
Professor, Sacred Heart Nursing College, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India
|Date of Submission||27-May-2020|
|Date of Decision||07-Jun-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||08-Jun-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||14-Sep-2020|
Dr. Devakirubai Earnest
Professor, Sacred Heart Nursing College, Madurai, Tamil Nadu
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
The issues surrounding the quality of qualitative research are many, and there are different perspectives to the same. This has led to the proliferation of terminologies, criteria and frameworks to judge the quality, which causes confusion for novice qualitative researchers. This article highlights the following: (1) three issues in the quality of qualitative research (rigour and validity versus trustworthiness, generic standards versus tradition specific standards, and the process evaluation versus post hoc evaluation); (2) Lincoln and Guba's qualitative framework and (3) quality enhancement strategies.
Keywords: Qualitative research, quality, rigor
|How to cite this article:|
Earnest D. Quality in qualitative research: An overview. Indian J Cont Nsg Edn 2020;21:76-80
| Introduction|| |
The concern for quality always takes centre stage throughout the steps of any research. Increasing demand for qualitative research in recent years has increased the demand for demonstration of quality in qualitative research. What constitutes quality in qualitative research has been the topic of debate for two to three decades and this has led to the proliferation of numerous terminologies, criteria, and frameworks. Quality in qualitative research has always been a perplexing issue for novice qualitative researchers since there are innumerable articles on the same with different perspectives. The purpose of this article is to present the issues surrounding the quality of qualitative research, an overview of different criteria and frameworks, and strategies to ensure rigor or trustworthiness in qualitative research.
| Quality in Qualitative Research|| |
Despite numerous criteria and frameworks available to assess the quality of qualitative research, there is little consensus among researchers about what constitutes quality. For a long time, scholars across practice and social disciplines desired to define and categorise a qualitative study as good, valid, and/or trustworthy by describing the codifying techniques used for ensuring and recognising good studies. Despite all the efforts, they felt that no consensus could be achieved on quality criteria, and there was also a question of its need. There are several distinct perspectives on the quality of qualitative research, according to Dingwall et al., and the three issues from this classic article will be addressed.
- Arguments about rigor and validity versus trustworthiness
- Qualitative criteria: Generic versus tradition specific standards
- During the process versus post hoc evaluation.
| Arguments About Rigor and Validity Versus Trustworthiness|| |
Rigor has its origin in quantitative research. 'Without rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction and loses its utility'. A major dispute has involved whether 'rigour' and 'validity' are appropriate to use in qualitative research. Some reject these concepts and terms totally, some think they are appropriate, and some look for parallel terms. Examples of terms that came up to replace validity and rigor are goodness, truth value, trustworthiness and integrity.
There are two classic articles on rigour in qualitative research. In 1993 article, Sandelowski and Barroso  acknowledged that the term rigor could mean inflexibility and rigidity and that researchers should not be too preoccupied with it; she added that the choice was ours: whether to make rigor a rigor mortis or not. Indeed, excessive rigor may hinder creativity and artistry. The use of the term validity in qualitative research was defended by others like Whitmore and Mandle  and Morse et al. However, Sparks (2001) described four issues related to the use of validity in qualitative research. First, within a reflection perspective, validity is an appropriate term to use in qualitative and quantitative research; secondly, in a parallel perspective, validity assumes the development of separate criteria for qualitative enquiry. This resulted in the development of standards for 'trustworthiness' of qualitative research that parallels the term reliability and validity in quantitative research. Thirdly, diversification of meanings perspective, in which new forms of validity that do not have reference points in quantitative research are established; for example, 'catalytic validity' by Lather  in connection with critical and feminist research. Fourth, letting-go-of validity perspective, which involves a total abandonment of the concept of validity.
Currently, qualitative researchers prefer the term trustworthiness instead of rigor and validity. Trustworthiness in qualitative research means methodological soundness and adequacy. Trustworthiness is defined as the degree of confidence that the researcher has that their qualitative data and findings are credible, transferable and dependable. Barusch et al. suggest that this term gives the qualitative researchers at least an opportunity to explain to others the credibility of their research.
| Qualitative Criteria: Generic Versus Tradition Specific Criteria|| |
The literature review on the quality of qualitative research presents many perspectives in relation to criteria. The perspectives described by Rolfe  and others capture the essence of the ongoing debate on qualitative criteria and the main perspectives are:
- Qualitative research can be judged by the same criteria used for quantitative research
- Qualitative research should be judged using specific criteria designed for qualitative research
- No predetermined criteria should be used to judge the quality of qualitative research
- There should be tradition specific criteria to judge qualitative research, for example, Watson and Girard  proposed that quality standards must be 'congruent with the philosophical underpinnings supporting the research tradition endorsed' (p. 875) [Table 1].
|Table 1: Examples of quality criteria used in assessing quantitative and qualitative research|
Click here to view
| During the Process Versus Post Hocevaluation|| |
The third issue is whether the quality of qualitative research has to be evaluated during the inquiry process or at the end of the research. Detailed discussion on this issue is beyond the scope of this article.
Given the lack of consensus, and the heated debate supporting and contesting various frameworks, it is difficult to get definitive guidance. Hence, the following sections will present information about Lincoln and Guba's  classic framework and describe various strategies to enhance quality in qualitative research.
| Lincoln and Guba's Framework|| |
Lincoln and Guba  suggested four criteria to ensure trustworthiness in qualitative research: credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability; these four criteria parallels the positivists' criteria of internal validity, reliability, objectivity, and external validity respectively. In 1994, Lincoln and Guba  added a fifth criterion called 'authenticity' that is unique to the constructivist paradigm. The meaning of each of the criteria is portrayed in [Table 2].
| Quality Enhancement Strategies in Qualitative Inquiry|| |
Regardless of the numerous criteria and confusion that exist in assessing the quality of qualitative research,various strategies have been proposed to enhance the quality of qualitative inquiry. They are: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, reflexivity strategies, member checking, triangulation, peer debriefing, audit or decision trail, inquiry audit, searching for confirming evidence, searching for disconfirming evidence and alternative explanations, thick description and researcher credibility.
| Prolonged Engagement|| |
Investing sufficient time in collecting/generating qualitative data are called prolonged engagement, and this helps in ensuring in-depth understanding of the phenomenon, testing for misinformation and distortion, ensuring saturation of data thus avoiding premature closure, gaining entry in to the unknown, and in gaining trust and rapport. The authority and skill of the researcher is essential in eliciting the 'right kind' of data and prolonged engagement provides scope to the phenomenon being studied.
| Persistent Observation|| |
Persistent observation refers to the researcher's focus on the characteristics or aspects of a situation or a conversation that are relevant to the phenomenon being studied. Persistent observation is to identify those characteristics and elements in the situation that are most relevant to the problem or issue being pursued and focusing on them in detail. Persistent observation provides a depth of understanding of the 'salient factors'.
| Reflexivity|| |
The process of critical self-reflection or self-critical stance about oneself as researcher (own biases, preferences, preconceptions), and how the research relationship is established and maintained (relationship to the participant and how the relationship affects participants' answers to questions) is called reflexivity. Reflexivity is ongoing through data collection, analysis, interpretation and write up. The methods by which reflexivity can be maintained is to maintain reflexive journal (recorded from the outset of the study and in an ongoing fashion) of the thoughts about the impact of previous life experiences and previous readings about the phenomenon under inquiry, researchers being interviewed themselves, and conduction of 'bracketing interview'-where the researcher enters the interview relationship with an open mind.
| Member Checking|| |
Member checking, also known as participant or respondent validation is a process in which the data or results are returned to participants to check for accuracy and meaning of their accounts and resonance of evolving concepts with their experience. The specific purposes of this procedure are to find out whether the reality of the participants is presented, to provide opportunities for them to correct mistakes, to assess the researcher's understanding and interpretation of the data and to give the participants' the opportunity to challenge the ideas of the researcher. Member checking may also provide an opportunity for participants to have a reflection of experiences.
| Audit Trail or Decision Trail|| |
Lincoln and Guba developed the concept of an audit trail. An audit trail is the systematic and detailed record of the decisions made before and during the research and description of the research process; that is transparently describing the decisions taken from the start of a research project to the development and reporting of the findings. An audit trail helps an inquiry auditor to come to conclusions about the data. Rodgers and Cowles  suggest four types of documentation in relation to an audit trail. Although published decades ago, the types are still referred to widely. They are: Contextual documents-contain excerpts from field notes of observation and interviewing, description of the setting, people and location; methodological documents – includes methodological decision-making and the rationale for these decisions; analytic documents – consist of reflections on the analysis of data and the theoretical insights gained; personal response documents – describe the thought process and demonstrate the self-awareness of the researcher.
| Enquiry Audit|| |
An enquiry audit involves a scrutiny of the data and relevant supporting documents by an external reviewer; that is, having a researcher not involved in the research process examines both the process and product of the research study. The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy and evaluate whether or not the findings, interpretations and conclusions are supported by the data. After the audit trail materials are gathered, the inquiry auditor proceeds to audit, in a manner similar to financial audit, and this serves as a tool for persuading others that the qualitative findings are trustworthy.
| Peer Review or Debriefing|| |
Peer debriefing involves sessions with peers who are competent in qualitative research procedures to review, analyse and explore various aspects of the inquiry. The following may be done in a peer debriefing session: Present written or oral summaries of the data, emergent categories or themes, interpretations of the data; taped interviews might be played; or transcripts given to read. Peer review helps in the detection of bias, inappropriate subjectivity, competing explanations, and appropriateness and completeness of theme detection and conceptualisation.
| Thick Description|| |
The thick description refers to a rich, thorough description of the research setting, and the transactions and processes observed during the inquiry. Thick description necessitates prolonged engagement and persistent observation. It involves the art of writing and rewriting. Thorne and Darbyshire  cautioned against 'lachrymal validity' (reports that makes the readers shed tears) and reports that are 'bloodless' (reports that are superficially descriptive without application of inductive analysis). If there is to be transferability, sufficient information about context and data that explains the phenomenon should be provided by the researcher.
| Searching for Disconfirming Evidence and Alternative Explanations|| |
This is a powerful verification procedure and occurs at the intersection of data collection and data analysis. This involves a systematic search and critical analysis of data that will challenge the emerging categorisation or explanation. It means thinking about other possibilities. Data that confirm as well as those that challenge and disconfirm have to be examined. This happens through purposeful or theoretical sampling methods. Lincoln and Guba  called it negative case analysis and the goal of this is to continuously refine the emerging categorization, thus the hypothesis and theory, until it fits all cases; Patton  also encourages a systematic exploration for rival themes and explanations.
| Researcher Credibility|| |
In qualitative inquiry, data are mediated through the researchers who are not only the data collecting instruments but also the creators of the analytic process. Therefore, it becomes essential to report researcher qualification, experience, and reflexivity in establishing confidence in the findings.,
| Triangulation|| |
Triangulation is a process by which the phenomenon or topic under study is examined from different perspectives or it is an approach to research that uses a combination of more than one research strategy in a single investigation. Triangulation ensures completeness and consistency of data collected and confirms the findings of the research. The different types of triangulation, as discussed by Carter et al. are summarised in [Table 3].
In addition to the above criteria, conducting high-quality research is not only about what researchers do to ensure rigor (e.g., methods and strategies) but includes who the researchers are. As Morse et al. indicate, 'Research is only as good as the investigator' (p. 10). Researcher attributes that are important to conducting quality qualitative inquiry are commitment to transparency, commitment to thoroughness and diligence, commitment to verification, commitment to reflexivity, commitment to participant-driven enquiry and commitment to insightful interpretations.
| Conclusion|| |
Quality in qualitative research continues to evolve as the controversies continue. Whatever terms health researchers apply to establish the quality of their qualitative research, qualitative researchers have to demonstrate that their research has a truth value, and they should be consistent in the language, concepts and methods to achieve, demonstrate, and articulate the quality of their research. Quality is a responsibility.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Cypress BS. Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2017;36:253-63.
Reynolds J, Kizito J, Ezumah N, Mangesho P, Allen E, Chandler C. Quality assurance of qualitative research: A review of the discourse. Health Res Policy Syst 2011;9:43.
Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Reading qualitative studies. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1:74-108.
Dingwall R, Murphy E, Watson P, Greatbatch D, Parker S. Catching goldfish: Quality in qualitative research. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3:167-72.
Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 2002;1:13-22.
Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in qualitative research. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1986;8:27-37.
Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1993;16:1-8.
Bradbury-Jones C. Enhancing rigour in qualitative health research: Exploring subjectivity through Peshkin's I's. J Adv Nurs 2007;59:290.
Whitmore RC, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2004;11:522-37.
Lather P. Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange 1986;17:63-84.
Holloway I, Galvin K. Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare. Iowa: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
Andrew S, Halcomb EJCreswell JW, Fetters MD, Plano VL Clark, et al
. Mixed methods intervention trials. In: Andrew S, Halcomb EJ, eds. Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009:161-80.
Barusch A, Gringeri C, George M. Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Res 2011;35:11-9.
Rolfe G. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 2006;53:304-10.
Watson LA, Girard FM. Establishing integrity and avoiding methodological misunderstanding. Qual Health Res 2004;14:875-81.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications; 1985.
Finlay L, Rigour, ethical integrity'or 'artistry'? Reflexively reviewing criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Br J Occup Ther 2006;69:319-26.
Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: Eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 2010;16:837-51.
Chiovitti RF, Piran N. Rigour and grounded theory research. J Adv Nurs 2003;44:427-35.
De Witt L, Ploeg J. Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research. J Adv Nurs 2006;55:215-29.
LeCompte MD, Goetz JP. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Rev Educ Res 1982;52:31-60.
Richardson L. Evaluating ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry 2000;6:253-5.
Whitehead L. Enhancing the quality of hermeneutic research: Decision trail. J Adv Nurs 2004;45:512-8.
Milne J, Oberle K. Enhancing rigor in qualitative description. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs
Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research. 10th
ed. New Delhi, India: Wolter Kluwer; 2017
Jootun D, McGhee G, Marland GR. Reflexivity: Promoting rigour in qualitative research. Nurs Stand 2009;23:42.
Lear H, Eboh W, Diack L. A nurse researcher's guide to reflexive interviewing. Nurse Res 2018;25:35-42.
Rolls L, Relf M. Bracketing interviews: Addressing methodological challenges in qualitative interviewing in bereavement and palliative care. Mortality 2006;11:286-305.
Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res 2016;26:1802-11.
Candela AG. Exploring the function of member checking. Qualitative Rep 2019;24:619-28.
Rodgers BL, Cowles KV. The qualitative research audit trail: A complex collection of documentation. Res Nurs Health 1993;16:219-26.
Anney VN. Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. J Emerg Trends Educ Res Policy Stud 2014;5:272-81.
Janesick VJ. Peer debriefing. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology; 2007.
Thorne S, Darbyshire P. Land mines in the field: A modest proposal for improving the craft of qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Res 2005;15:1105-13.
Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 1999;34(5Pt 2):1189.
Carter N, Lukosius B, Dicenso, Neville B. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014;41:545-47.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]