Constructing Research Quality: On the Performativity of the COREQ Checklist.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Niels Buus, Ben Ong, Rochelle Einboden, Anette Juel, Amelie Perron
{"title":"Constructing Research Quality: On the Performativity of the COREQ Checklist.","authors":"Niels Buus, Ben Ong, Rochelle Einboden, Anette Juel, Amelie Perron","doi":"10.1177/10497323251323225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":" ","pages":"10497323251323225"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323251323225","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

建构研究品质:论COREQ检查表的效能。
《定性研究报告综合标准》(COREQ)清单旨在提高访谈和焦点小组研究报告的质量,得到了期刊和出版商的广泛认可。然而,它在定性健康研究界的设计和应用也受到了严厉的批评。在本文中,我们对八篇文章及其附带的自我报告COREQ回答进行了详细的批判性文本分析,并讨论了检查表对研究质量外观的执行力。对作者在文章中的修辞策略和对检查表的回应的分析表明,他们有时会提供误导性的、不一致的或过多的信息,优先考虑检查表的完成,而不是对质量原则的实质性参与。虽然COREQ的目的是标准化报告,但它的严格结构经常导致作者过度遵守或不适当的反应,他们努力满足它的标准,即使这些标准不相关或不合适。这种“过度服从”反映了一种保持可信度和避免审查的愿望,但它破坏了定性研究的深度和严谨性。COREQ是一种认知工具,它塑造了研究者的实践和身份,超出了其既定的目的,虽然COREQ旨在加强问责制,但它使认知主导地位得以延续,侵蚀了定性研究中的真实性和批判性反思,最终加剧了它试图解决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信