Do you see what I see? Enhancement of rigour in qualitative approaches to inquiry: a systematic review of evidence

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
E. Patterson, Kerry Ball, Jessica Corkish, Isabella May Whittick
{"title":"Do you see what I see? Enhancement of rigour in qualitative approaches to inquiry: a systematic review of evidence","authors":"E. Patterson, Kerry Ball, Jessica Corkish, Isabella May Whittick","doi":"10.1108/qrj-06-2022-0086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to synthesise current literature on the conceptualisation of rigour within qualitative studies and to identify factors which contribute to the enhancement of rigour for the practical implementation of qualitative research.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents an interpretivist stance in line with a qualitative approach to research. A systematic review method was adopted to provide a structured and rigorous selection of relevant literature. Data was analysed using a thematic synthesis method, as outlined by Thomas and Harden (2008).FindingsThe results of the thematic synthesis identified seven descriptive themes in the literature: conceptualising rigour, conceptualising truth and value in knowledge generation, participant trust and communication of truth, rigour in research design and implementation, subjectivity, reflexivity and researcher identity, reader confidence and transparency and strategies for enhancing rigour. These descriptive themes were further developed into three analytical themes: ethical co-construction, methodological alignment and multi-perspective interpretation.Originality/valueThis paper presents an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept of rigour in qualitative research. The themes identified are applicable across fields and provide an original application of thematic synthesis.","PeriodicalId":47040,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-06-2022-0086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to synthesise current literature on the conceptualisation of rigour within qualitative studies and to identify factors which contribute to the enhancement of rigour for the practical implementation of qualitative research.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents an interpretivist stance in line with a qualitative approach to research. A systematic review method was adopted to provide a structured and rigorous selection of relevant literature. Data was analysed using a thematic synthesis method, as outlined by Thomas and Harden (2008).FindingsThe results of the thematic synthesis identified seven descriptive themes in the literature: conceptualising rigour, conceptualising truth and value in knowledge generation, participant trust and communication of truth, rigour in research design and implementation, subjectivity, reflexivity and researcher identity, reader confidence and transparency and strategies for enhancing rigour. These descriptive themes were further developed into three analytical themes: ethical co-construction, methodological alignment and multi-perspective interpretation.Originality/valueThis paper presents an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept of rigour in qualitative research. The themes identified are applicable across fields and provide an original application of thematic synthesis.
你看到我看到的了吗?加强定性调查方法的严格性:对证据的系统审查
目的本文的目的是综合当前关于定性研究中严格性概念化的文献,并确定有助于提高定性研究实际实施的严格性的因素。设计/方法论/方法本文提出了一种与定性研究方法相一致的解释主义立场。采用了系统的综述方法,对相关文献进行了结构化和严格的选择。如Thomas和Harden(2008)所述,使用主题综合方法对数据进行了分析。发现主题综合的结果确定了文献中的七个描述性主题:概念化的严谨性、概念化的知识生成中的真理和价值、参与者对真理的信任和沟通、研究设计和实施中的严谨性,反思性和研究者身份、读者信心和透明度以及提高严谨性的策略。这些描述性主题被进一步发展为三个分析主题:伦理共建、方法协调和多视角解读。原创性/价值本文对定性研究中的严格性概念进行了跨学科的探索。所确定的主题适用于各个领域,并提供了专题综合的原始应用。
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
Qualitative Research Journal
Qualitative Research Journal SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) is an international journal devoted to the communication of the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. It is interdisciplinary and eclectic, covering all methodologies that can be described as qualitative. It offers an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices. QRJ deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual inquiry.
×
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