{"title":"Application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria to assess trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems","authors":"O. Enworo","doi":"10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper illustrates how Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for establishing trustworthiness, can be adapted and applied to qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. It provides insights for social protection researchers, exploring plausible qualitative research rigor evaluation criteria, on plausible alternatives.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on qualitative evidence from a larger ethnographic study on the dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria. It illustrates the systematic application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria.FindingsAvailable evidence from the study shows that Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria is viable for establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. The criteria can facilitate credible and reliable research outcomes in research on improving social protection policy and practice.Research limitations/implicationsQualitative inquiries that draw on Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria as evaluation criteria for trustworthiness can complement quantitative research on social protection. This makes it imperative to incorporate both, in social protection research for a holistic system. How this can be done is beyond the scope of this paper but needs to be explored by future research.Originality/valueContrary to the use of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria in qualitative research in other contexts, the use of the criteria has not been carefully examined in qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.","PeriodicalId":47040,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-08-2022-0116","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: 3
Abstract
PurposeThis paper illustrates how Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for establishing trustworthiness, can be adapted and applied to qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. It provides insights for social protection researchers, exploring plausible qualitative research rigor evaluation criteria, on plausible alternatives.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on qualitative evidence from a larger ethnographic study on the dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria. It illustrates the systematic application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria.FindingsAvailable evidence from the study shows that Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria is viable for establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. The criteria can facilitate credible and reliable research outcomes in research on improving social protection policy and practice.Research limitations/implicationsQualitative inquiries that draw on Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria as evaluation criteria for trustworthiness can complement quantitative research on social protection. This makes it imperative to incorporate both, in social protection research for a holistic system. How this can be done is beyond the scope of this paper but needs to be explored by future research.Originality/valueContrary to the use of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria in qualitative research in other contexts, the use of the criteria has not been carefully examined in qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.
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.