Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies

  • Madill A
  • Jordan A
  • Shirley C
  • 468


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 271


    Citations of this article.


The effect of the individual analyst on research findings can create a credibility problem for qualitative approaches from the perspective of evaluative criteria utilized in quantitative psychology. This paper explicates the ways in which objectivity and reliability are understood in qualitative analysis conducted from within three distinct epistemological frameworks: realism, contextual constructionism, and radical constructionism. It is argued that quality criteria utilized in quantitative psychology are appropriate to the evaluation of qualitative analysis only to the extent that it is conducted within a naive or scientific realist framework. The discussion is illustrated with reference to the comparison of two independent grounded theory analyses of identical material. An implication of this illustration is to identify the potential to develop a radical constructionist strand of grounded theory.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document


  • Anna Madill

  • Abbie Jordan

  • Caroline Shirley

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free