How to … assess the quality of qualitative research

Stenfors, Terese; Kajamaa, Anu; Bennett, Deirdre

doi:10.1111/tct.13242

Cited by 130 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, ''80% of all respondents agreed that'' or ''only one of the interviewees mentioned that'') may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al, 2020). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for ''why this may not help in intensifying the research'' has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020).…”

Section: Improving Quality: Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Yadav

2021

Asia-Pacific Edu Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

show abstract

Section: Improving Quality: Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Yadav

2021

Asia-Pacific Edu Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to improve the reliability of reviewers, one of the ways suggested by Kravitz et al [ 84 ] was providing more effective guidelines for reviewers, and one suggested by Kwon et al [ 85 ] was providing a checklist to reviewers. In more recent study, Stenfors et al [ 66 ] also suggested that guidelines may help to better identify criteria indicating high-quality research in journal publications. DiDomenico et al [ 86 ] discussed about previous studies that investigated the effectiveness of formal training on review quality and found the training to influence the review quality insignificantly or limitedly; thus, the authors suggested that reviewers may benefit from some guidance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Peer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript’s significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched. Results Of 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines. Conclusion This review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review. Protocol registration The protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com): reviewregistry881.

show abstract

“…Credibility of this study was enhanced through triangulation [ 38 , 39 ]. To achieve data triangulation, this study considered participants with experiences of research fellowship abroad in different countries and data collection was carried out at different times (i.e., after and during research fellowship abroad).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of national culture on mentoring relationship: a qualitative study of Japanese physician-scientists

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Nurturing of physician-scientists is an important mission of academic medical institutes. Although the importance of mentorship in developing future physician-scientists internationally is well established, not much information is available about how they are mentored and how national cultures influence the mentoring relationship. This study explores the cultural characteristics of mentoring relationships between senior mentors and junior mentees of Japanese physician-scientists. Method A qualitative approach has been employed to explore mentoring relationships of Japanese physician-scientists from cultural viewpoints, through semi-structured interviews with 17 mentees who had the experience of working overseas as post-doctoral research fellow. The reflection of their experiences and the perception of mentoring relationships before going abroad were thematically analyzed by applying Hofstede’s model of six cultural dimensions as a theoretical framework. Results Twelve characteristic themes for mentoring were observed, including trustworthy dependency on mentor, embracing paternalistic mentoring, mentee’s initiative within expectations of mentor based on power distance, a sense of loyalty to mentor/organization/colleagues, family-like relationship with mentor based on collectivism, sense of security on being led by mentor through uncertainty avoidance, motivation by role modeling for the competitive academic world, and adaption of female mentee/mentor to a male-dominated academic structure based on masculinity, a long-term relationship between mentor and mentee, receiving advice for organizational continuity based on long-term orientation, putting work before leisure, and friendly relationship between mentor and mentee outside of work based on indulgence. Conclusions This study identified the characteristic mentoring relationships of postgraduate mentees of Japanese physician-scientists. Considering the importance of mentoring for physician-scientists in a globalized society, understanding the characteristics of national cultures would help in ensuring culture-sensitive mentoring and would contribute to the development of academic medicine.

show abstract

How to … assess the quality of qualitative research

Cited by 130 publications

References 10 publications

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers

Influence of national culture on mentoring relationship: a qualitative study of Japanese physician-scientists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About