Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

Criteria for determining the trustworthiness of qualitative research were introduced by Guba and Lincoln in the 1980s when they replaced terminology for achieving rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability with dependability, credibility, and transferability. Strategies for achieving trustworthiness were also introduced. This landmark contribution to qualitative research remains in use today, with only minor modifications in format. Despite the significance of this contribution over the past four decades, the strategies recommended to achieve trustworthiness have not been critically examined. Recommendations for where, why, and how to use these strategies have not been developed, and how well they achieve their intended goal has not been examined. We do not know, for example, what impact these strategies have on the completed research. In this article, I critique these strategies. I recommend that qualitative researchers return to the terminology of social sciences, using rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability. I then make recommendations for the appropriate use of the strategies recommended to achieve rigor: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and thick, rich description; inter-rater reliability, negative case analysis; peer review or debriefing; clarifying researcher bias; member checking; external audits; and triangulation.

Physical activity promotion for people with spinal cord injury: physiotherapists’ beliefs and actions

“…This process is not to be mistaken with member checking which seeks to find the data credible by matching the participants' and researchers' interpretations of the data. [41,42] Rather, the fact that the participants were able to connect with the themes and recognize themselves and their colleagues in the data illustrates naturalistic generalizability. [31] …”

“…[31,39] For this study we drew upon a subset of criteria that we deemed appropriate to guide our thematic analysis from the many proposed criteria for judging qualitative research. [40,41] In turn we propose that any reader may use this guide to make their own judgements about the quality of this study. For example, the worthiness of the topic was illustrated in the rationale for the project by highlighting PA promotion in SCI populations as a relevant, timely and significant issue.…”

Observation manuals as lenses to classroom teaching: Pitfalls and possibilities

“…This is also why so many observation manuals actually require training and certification. While complete consensus on what specific words refer to is utopic, stipulating and defining features of instruction, as many observation manuals attempt to do through a common technical vocabulary and supporting rubrics, can enhance validity and reliability (Morse, 2015) and improve credibility of research (Blikstad-Balas, 2014). While no set of codes could ever capture everything that matters in the classroom, a common technical language for instructional practices can be a great starting point for talking about teaching.…”

“…Codification enables researchers to reduce the richness of, for instance, classroom instruction and talk about allocated observed behaviour that has been identified following a set of well-defined and agreed-upon codes. Obtaining the coding system to ensure that the meaning of the analysis is the same between coders enhances the validity and certainty of findings, Morse (2015) argues. Although this certainly involves reduction ( Blikstad-Balas, 2016;Snell, 2011) The richness and complexity of most topics studied in educational research makes it compelling to develop new sets of codes that suit a particular study.…”

Publish, Don’t Perish!: Strategies for Getting Published in Peer Reviewed Journals

“…For example, the editorial board of the Journal of the Society for Social Work & Research (JSSWR) has recently issued, JSSWR Author Guidelines for Manuscripts Reporting Qualitative Research and the journal has published an article about the process of developing these guidelines (Wu, et al 2016 Morse, 2015;Staller and Krumer-Nevo, 2013;Staller, 2015a;Staller, 2015b).…”