Rethinking reflexivity, replicability and rigour in qualitative research.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thoughts on the Conduct and Dissemination of Qualitative Research

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

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.

Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

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...

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.

PurposeIn this paper, the authors investigate and celebrate the contributions that qualitative research has made to Career Development International (CDI) and careers scholarship over the past 25 years. The authors highlight the positive impact of understanding the “lived/emic experiences” of individual career actors using qualitative research designs and identify areas for future research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ multiple approaches in their investigation. The authors’ enquiry is part conceptual, part critical analysis and part bibliometric visualisation of qualitative papers published in CDI.FindingsThe authors identify the underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions of qualitative research, and the key tenets and contributions of qualitative research published in CDI. Their bibliometric analysis shows the interrelatedness and frequency of topics addressed by qualitative research and published in CDI, revealing areas for further research. While identifying some of the key criteria for rigor in qualitative research, the authors also engage with emerging calls to avoid rigid templates in how qualitative research is designed and implemented. In this regard, authors echo calls for “methodological bricolage” as an approach to qualitative research in the study of careers.Originality/valueThis is the first bibliographic and visual analysis of qualitative research published in a single journal. The authors offer this investigation as a way of looking back and as an invitation looking forward, encouraging further qualitative research in anticipation of future theoretical developments in career scholarship.

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.

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.

This article illustrates how the concept of reflexivity has matured in conjunction with developments in qualitative research, and makes the case for inclusion of a reflexive account to increase the rigour of the research process. A qualitative study (Jootun and McGhee 2006) is used to show how the reflexive process improved data reliability. Reflexivity is an invaluable tool to promote understanding of the phenomenon under study and the researcher's role. The relationship between, and influence of, the researcher and participants should be made explicit.