Evaluating goodness in qualitative researcher

2Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This article explores the issue of "evaluating goodness in qualitative research", from a perspective of novice qualitative researchers. Despite the recent upsurge in publications of qualitative studies especially in health sciences, the issue of goodness in qualitative research is still debatable. Qualitative researches in contrast to traditional research not only differ in research methodology and methods but also in data analysis. Although approaches for evaluating goodness in qualitative research are available but consensus on universality is still lacking. The development of extrinsic criteria although provide the guidelines for post positivist studies, however, it is not acceptable to interpretivist /constructivist who believe on multiple realities and knowledge as co construct. The authenticity criteria although fits well to constructivism/interpretivism, however, researchers argue that because it provide a post hoc strategy for evaluation of a study and avoid focusing during its conduct, thus causing serious threats to the credibility. Primary criteria forwarded by Whitemoore et al.1, although seems essential for all qualitative inquiry but because based on validity has been rejected by authors on the grounds that qualitative epistemological and ontological assumptions are entirely different to the traditional qualitative research. The criteria by Ballinger in 20062 although seems practical in application to all paradigms, however, as it also questions reflexivity which seems irrelevant in realist tradition. Further other general criteria such as seems popular because of its simplistic approach but do not address the terms of ontology, epistemology and paradigm that seem very important in qualitative research. It is important for the novice qualitative researchers to be aware of the debate on the issue of evaluating goodness of qualitative research. However, they should adopt a cautious stand while favouring or rejecting one criteria. Finally the development of a universal and uniform criteria is although important but not necessary requirement for the qualitative research progress.

References Powered by Scopus

Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines

3223Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research

2727Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research

2573Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Gauging the quality of qualitative research in adapted physical activity

78Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A qualitative study of the factors that influence mothers when choosing drinks for their young children

23Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Qazi, H. A. (2011). Evaluating goodness in qualitative researcher. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science. Ibn Sina Trust. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v10i1.7314

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 19

83%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

13%

Researcher 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 11

50%

Business, Management and Accounting 5

23%

Nursing and Health Professions 3

14%

Psychology 3

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free