Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

被引:11
|
作者
Yadav D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, Vienna
关键词
Assessment; Evaluative criteria; Qualitative research; Quality;
D O I
10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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. © 2021, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:679 / 689
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Good listening: A key element in establishing quality in qualitative research
    Lavee, Einat
    Itzchakov, Guy
    QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, 2023, 23 (03) : 614 - 631
  • [22] Using a smartphone app in qualitative research: the good, the bad and the ugly
    Garcia, Borja
    Welford, Jo
    Smith, Brett
    QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, 2016, 16 (05) : 508 - 525
  • [23] Sanitation Criteria: A Comprehensive Review of Existing Sustainability and Resilience Evaluation Criteria for Sanitation Systems
    Chambers, Katherine G.
    Sheridan, Patrick M.
    Cook, Sherri M.
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LETTERS, 2022, 9 (07) : 583 - 591
  • [24] Qualitative research in cardiac arrest research: A narrative review
    Dainty, Katie N.
    RESUSCITATION PLUS, 2024, 17
  • [25] Research gaps in Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programs: A qualitative study
    Scharp, Victoria L.
    Off, Catherine A.
    Wilson, Micaela
    Roberts, Katie Jo
    APHASIOLOGY, 2025, 39 (01) : 137 - 171
  • [26] Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review
    Emary, Peter C.
    Stuber, Kent J.
    Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
    Oremus, Mark
    Nolet, Paul S.
    V. Nash, Jennifer
    Bauman, Craig A.
    Ciraco, Carla
    Couban, Rachel J.
    Busse, Jason W.
    JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2023, 46 (03) : 152 - 161
  • [27] Inquiring into Filipino Teachers' Conceptions of Good Teaching: A Qualitative Research Study
    Bustos-Orosa, Ma. Alicia
    ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER, 2008, 17 (02) : 157 - 171
  • [28] Building criteria to evaluate qualitative research papers: a tool for peer reviewers
    Costa, Antonio Pedro
    de Souza Minayo, Maria Cecilia
    REVISTA DA ESCOLA DE ENFERMAGEM DA USP, 2019, 53
  • [29] Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review
    Bryman, A
    LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY, 2004, 15 (06) : 729 - 769
  • [30] Quality assurance of qualitative research: a review of the discourse
    Joanna Reynolds
    James Kizito
    Nkoli Ezumah
    Peter Mangesho
    Elizabeth Allen
    Clare Chandler
    Health Research Policy and Systems, 9