Criteria for quality in qualitative research and use of freedom of information requests in the social sciences

Abstract

Access to information (ATI) and freedom of information (FOI) requests are an under-used means of producing data in the social sciences, especially across Canada and the United States. We use literature on criteria for quality in qualitative inquiry to enhance ongoing debates and developments in ATI/FOI research, and to extend literature on quality in qualitative inquiry. We do this by building on Tracy’s (2010) article on criteria for quality in qualitative inquiry, which advances meaningful terms of reference for qualitative researchers to use in improving the quality of their work; and illustrating these criteria using examples of ATI/FOI research from our own work and from others’ in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. We argue that, when systematically designed and conducted, ATI/FOI research can prove extraordinary in all eight of Tracy’s criteria.

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research

“…6. Transferability is another expected feature of discussion in qualitative submissions (Walby & Luscombe, 2016 ). Statistical generalizability is not desirable or reasonable in qualitative research, but qualities of 'thick description' that present findings with categories identified that are appropriately defined and supported by sufficient data are expected.…”

“…Rigor is important but, from the perspective of some transformative paradigms, this understanding of rigor is problematically limited, as it excludes consideration of the motivation and purpose of research and the social or community‐related effects of research outcomes (Dellinger & Leech, ). All researchers, whether qualitative or quantitative, might agree that rigorous research is not necessarily ‘good’ research; many who undertake qualitative research prioritize additional criteria relating to professional and ethical practice as the basis from which to establish the value of the research endeavor (Barusch et al, ; Walby & Luscombe, ).…”

Brokering Access Beyond the Border and in the Wild: Comparing Freedom of Information Law and Policy in Canada and the United States

“…In more methodologically oriented discussions, scholars (e.g., Walby and Luscombe 2017;Jiwani and Krawchenko 2014;Savage and Hyde 2014;Walby and Larsen 2012) have elaborated how FOI requests can enhance social inquiry. Yet there is no guarantee that FOI researchers will receive full disclosure, making consistent use of FOI requests challenging for social science researchers (Monaghan 2015).…”

What is business school research for? Academic and stakeholder perspectives, politics and relationality

“…The thick description offered in our study, and the deep contextualised understandings reported in our findings, offers a basis for consideration of application to other contexts (Walby and Luscombe 2017;Levitt, Creswell, Josselson, Bamberg, Frost and Suárez-Orozco 2018). It would be worthwhile to return to our research sites to pursue follow-on inquiry, looking at how the conversation has developed not least in the run up to the subsequent REF.…”