Reflexivity: promoting rigour in qualitative research

Attention to rigour, from the identification of the problem to the dissemination of the findings, is essential in all qualitative research. In this paper, research carried out in Ghana in 1999 is used to highlight methodological issues in relation to rigour in international qualitative nursing research. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature in relation to rigour in qualitative research, highlight the methodological decisions enhancing rigour during this research project, and describe the criteria used to assess rigour during the research process. A participatory action research design was used to explore the cultural, social, economic, and political factors that influenced Ghanaian women's vulnerability to HIV infection. Collaboration with participants and partnerships with key professionals were integral to the design of the study. Participatory action research provided a flexible, socially, and culturally adaptable framework to guide this international research project. Prior to the initiation of international research it was essential to establish the relevance and feasibility of the proposed project. This international research project posed additional methodological challenges to the establishment of rigour. Patience, flexibility and sensitivity were required of the researcher to overcome these challenges. Collaboration with participants and with culture-specific 'experts' may be key to culturally competent scholarship, particularly in unfamiliar settings.

Introduction: <br/>The credibility of qualitative research has long been debated, with critics emphasizing the lack of rigor and the challenges of demonstrating it. In qualitative research, rigor encompasses explicit, detailed descriptions of various research stages, including problem framing, study design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. The diversity inherent in qualitative research, originating from various beliefs and paradigms, challenges establishing universal guidelines for determining its rigor. Additionally, researchers' often unrecorded thought processes in qualitative studies further complicate the assessment of research quality.<br/><br/>Methods:<br/>To address these concerns, this article builds on the TACT framework, which was developed to teach postgraduate students and those new to qualitative research to identify and apply rigorous principles and indicators in qualitative research. The research reported in this article focuses on creating a scale designed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the TACT framework. This involves analyzing the stability of its dimensions and understanding its effectiveness as a tool for teaching and research.<br/><br/>Results: <br/>The study's findings indicate that the TACT framework, when assessed through the newly developed scale, exhibits stable dimensions consistent with rigorous qualitative research principles. The framework effectively guides postgraduate students and new researchers in assessing the rigor of qualitative research processes and outcomes.<br/><br/>Discussion:<br/>The application of the TACT framework and its evaluation scale reveals several insights. Firstly, it demonstrates the framework's utility in bridging the gap in pedagogical tools for teaching rigor in qualitative research methods. Secondly, it highlights the framework's potential in providing a structured approach to undertaking qualitative research, which is essential given this field's diverse methodologies and paradigms. However, the TACT framework remains a guide to enhancing rigor in qualitative research throughout all the various phases but by no means a measure of rigor.<br/><br/>Conclusion:<br/>In conclusion, the TACT framework and its accompanying evaluative scale represent significant steps toward standardizing and enhancing the rigor of qualitative research, particularly for postgraduate students and early career researchers. While it does not solve all challenges associated with obtaining and demonstrating rigor in qualitative research, it provides a valuable tool for assessing and ensuring research quality, thereby addressing some of the longstanding criticisms of the quality of research obtained through qualitative methods.

Thoughts on the Conduct and Dissemination of Qualitative Research

Language and communication are the bedrock of qualitative enquiry. Language is a fundamental tool through which qualitative researchers seek to understand human behaviour, social processes and the cultural meanings that inscribe human behaviour. However, when conducting cross-cultural research, issues of language and communication become more complex and often require the assistance of interpreters/translators as “cultural brokers”. Cross-cultural research poses numerous methodological, epistemological and practical challenges, which are rarely debated in qualitative research. This chapter outlines the epistemological approach to language and communication in different research paradigms and demonstrates the implications of this for the rigour of qualitative enquiry. In particular, concepts of transparency, subjectivity and reflexivity, which are indicators of methodological rigour in qualitative research, are typically not applied to language assistants in cross-cultural qualitative research despite the critical role of language assistants in the generation of knowledge and its cultural interpretation. Improving cross-cultural qualitative research involves understanding how language and communication can affect rigour and addressing language and communication issues that underlie the entire research process. Failure to recognise and acknowledge the role of language and communication issues in cross-cultural research may impact on the rigour and reliability of the research.

Issues are still raised even now in the 21st century by the persistent concern with achieving rigor in qualitative research. There is also a continuing debate about the analogous terms reliability and validity in naturalistic inquiries as opposed to quantitative investigations. This article presents the concept of rigor in qualitative research using a phenomenological study as an exemplar to further illustrate the process. Elaborating on epistemological and theoretical conceptualizations by Lincoln and Guba, strategies congruent with qualitative perspective for ensuring validity to establish the credibility of the study are described. A synthesis of the historical development of validity criteria evident in the literature during the years is explored. Recommendations are made for use of the term rigor instead of trustworthiness and the reconceptualization and renewed use of the concept of reliability and validity in qualitative research, that strategies for ensuring rigor must be built into the qualitative research process rather than evaluated only after the inquiry, and that qualitative researchers and students alike must be proactive and take responsibility in ensuring the rigor of a research study. The insights garnered here will move novice researchers and doctoral students to a better conceptual grasp of the complexity of reliability and validity and its ramifications for qualitative inquiry.

Oncology has made significant advances in standardizing how clinical research is conducted and reported. The advancement of such research that improves oncology practice requires an expansion of not only our research questions but also the research methods we deploy to address them. In particular, there is increasing recognition of the value of qualitative research methods to develop more comprehensive understandings of phenomena of interest and to describe and explain underlying motivations and potential causes of specific outcomes. However, qualitative researchers in oncology have lacked guidance to produce and evaluate methodologically rigorous qualitative publications. In this review, we highlight characteristics of high-quality, methodologically rigorous reports of qualitative research, provide criteria for readers and reviewers to appraise such publications critically, and proffer guidance for preparing publications for submission to Journal of Oncology Practice. Namely, the quality of qualitative research in oncology practice is best assessed according to key domains that include fitness of purpose, theoretical framework, methodological rigor, ethical concerns, analytic comprehensives, and the dissemination/application of findings. In particular, determinations of rigor in qualitative research in oncology practice should consider definitions of the appropriateness of qualitative methods for the research objectives against the setting of current literature, use of an appropriate theoretical framework, inclusion of a rigorous and innovative measurement plan, application of appropriate analytic techniques, and clear explanation and dissemination of the research findings.

As the evidence base for the study of mental health problems develops, there is a need for increasingly rigorous and systematic research methodologies. Complex questions require complex methodological approaches. Recognising...

This commentary re-examines recent proposals to define quality in qualitative research through a singular unifying framework, situating them alongside historical and ongoing debates in qualitative methodology. By juxtaposing different traditions, this piece highlights areas of tension between procedural notions of rigour and interpretive approaches that emphasise the co-constructed, context-bound nature of meaning. The discussion argues that quality in qualitative research cannot be captured by a single metric or universal rule. Reflexive approaches resist rigid frameworks, instead favouring a situational and evolving engagement with meaning. While efforts to promote transparency and accountability in qualitative research are valuable, researchers should adopt methodological criteria aligned with their epistemological commitments. We argue that qualitative research can be considered rigorous insofar as it is deeply reflective, explicitly contextualised and transparent about its interpretive manoeuvres.

Scholars emphasize the need for additional rigor in qualitative research. This inadvertently encourages formulaic and standardized approaches that undermine the benefits of theorizing from rich data. Our study extends debate by emphasizing the importance of sound qualitative public administration research that blends rigor with richness and thereby facilitates effective theorization. Evidence from a narrative review of 31 qualitative studies published within six leading public administration journals demonstrates that effective theorizing is linked to transparency in research design, analytic approach, and theoretical contribution. In-depth interrogation of four studies that illustrate “inductive theorizing” and “abductive theorizing” identifies plurality in the balance struck between rigor and richness. We derive a broad set of principles that enable researchers to make a convincing “conceptual leap” between data, analysis, and contribution. We also emphasize the need to accommodate pluralistic approaches to theorizing by nuancing requirements for essential aspects of qualitative reporting, versus those amenable to variation.&#13;\n&#13;\n

This paper aims to present the use of triangulation in qualitative research as a strategy to achieve the proposed objectives, to ensure credibility, reliability, and greater scientific accuracy in its achievement. In this sense, triangulation - since it is not restricted to the use of only one method, theory, data source or researcher in the process of analyzing an event - allows the apprehension of a given reality from several angles, enabling information confrontation, in order to minimize bias resulting from a single analytical perspective. Thus, aiming at evidencing the possibilities of using such a methodological design, we used as an example a qualitative study about experiences of caregivers for patients with head and neck neoplasms, developed through multiple triangulation, namely: methodological (intra-method), data, researcher and environmental triangulation. When demonstrating a structured study in the form of triangulation, one aims to guide researchers interested in conducting qualitative studies with greater depth and methodological rigor in qualitative research.

Orientation: Qualitative research is marked by phenomenal growth and development over the years.Research purpose: This article aims to offer insight into the emerging qualitative methodologies used in the fields of Psychology, Industrial and Organisational Psychology and Human Resource Management.Motivation for the study: The value of qualitative organisational research has been recognised since the 1970s. Regardless of its perceived value, national and international trends show a greater tendency for quantitative research.Research design, approach and method: This article investigates qualitative articles (n = 242) published over two decades in the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP), South African Journal of Psychology (SAJP), and the South African Journal of Human Resource Management (SAJHRM). More specifically, a content analysis was conducted to highlight the trends of paradigms, designs and analysis methods employed in the studies.Main findings: Although there seems to be a slight increase in qualitative publications over the years, qualitative studies show a lower volume than its counterparts. The SAJIP published the least qualitative articles when compared to the SAJP and SAJHRM. There is a pattern of preference for specific paradigms and methods in all the journals. Overall, all the journals carry a large number of articles that do not specifically state their paradigmatic alignment or the designs they used, while some articles omits the methodology used in the studies altogether.Practical/managerial implications: The results indicate a clear need for increased exposure to qualitative methodology, both by publishing more qualitative studies in local journals and by providing formal training opportunities. A publication does not solely rely on authorship, but also on a review process. Therefore certain adjustments in this process may lead to more and better qualitative publications in future.Contribution/value-add: This article provides a critical analysis of the current trends and developments in qualitative research conducted in Industrial and Organisational Psychology(IOP) research in South Africa. The study identifies dominant methodologies in use, and thereby identifies possible opportunities to expand the ‘methodological menu’ of IOP research.

Rigorous qualitative research in behavioral science guides the understanding of the intricacies of human behavior, motivations, and experiences. It transcends mere observation, and delves into the depths of individual experiences and socio-cultural nuances. Through replicable research design, transparent data collection processes, and systematic analysis, rigorous qualitative research endeavors to unearth rich insights that quantitative and experimental approaches alone cannot capture. It offers a profound understanding of our world, contributing to the advancement of theory and practice within behavioral science. When applied in behavioral science, qualitative research provides a meaningful richness of insights, an approach we call qualitative behavioral science. Qualitative behavioral science synthesizes the long and deep traditions of qualitative research with the specific insights and goals of applied behavioral science: to understand and make meaningful, measurable changes in people’s lives.

The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist was designed to enhance quality in the reporting of interview and focus group studies, and it is widely endorsed by journals and publishers. However, it has also been heavily critiqued for its design and application in qualitative health research communities. In this article, we conduct detailed critical text analyses of eight articles and their accompanying self-reported COREQ responses and discuss the performative force of the checklist on the appearance of research quality. The analyses of authors' rhetorical strategies in articles and checklist responses indicated that they sometimes provide misleading, inconsistent, or excessive information, prioritizing checklist completion over substantive engagement with quality principles. While intended to standardize reporting, COREQ's rigid structure often led to overcompliance or inappropriate responses from authors, who strived to meet its criteria, even when they were irrelevant or unsuitable. This "overobedience" reflects a desire to maintain credibility and avoid scrutiny, yet it undermines the depth and rigor of qualitative research. COREQ is an epistemic device, shaping researcher practices and identities beyond its stated purpose, and while COREQ aims to enhance accountability, it perpetuates epistemic dominance, eroding authenticity and critical reflection in qualitative research, ultimately exacerbating the very problems it seeks to solve.

Qualitative and mixed methods methodology is becoming more commonplace in otolaryngology as the field strives to understand more complex concepts of the ear, nose, and throat. This methodology can have tremendous utility in studies directed at patient-centered care by offering practical insights and granular detail-directly from patients-which may not be realized by quantitative approaches. Narrative Review. This review focuses on what questions can be answered by qualitative research, the basics of the underlying principals and different methodologies utilized, and describes the pearls, pitfalls, and rigor of qualitative research. This understanding of qualitative inquiry is critical for the otolaryngologist to stay current on what is published and have the ability to include this in their research repertoire. Laryngoscope, 134:27-31, 2024.

Examines the quantity (N = 26) and rigor of qualitative research in The Journal of Pastoral Care, Pastoral Sciences, Journal of Religion and Health, and Pastoral Psychology for 1993-1997. Defines qualitative research using the work of Douglas Sprenkle and Sidney Moon. Uses the eleven criteria developed by Nicholas Mays and Catherine Pope in British Medical Journal for judging rigor. Finds low quantity and mixed quality and discusses implications.