qualitative research guidelines project

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

101k Accesses

47 Citations

70 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.7(4); 2015 Dec

Choosing a Qualitative Research Approach

Associated data.

Editor's Note: The online version of this article contains a list of further reading resources and the authors' professional information .

The Challenge

Educators often pose questions about qualitative research. For example, a program director might say: “I collect data from my residents about their learning experiences in a new longitudinal clinical rotation. If I want to know about their learning experiences, should I use qualitative methods? I have been told that there are many approaches from which to choose. Someone suggested that I use grounded theory, but how do I know this is the best approach? Are there others?”

What Is Known

Qualitative research is the systematic inquiry into social phenomena in natural settings. These phenomena can include, but are not limited to, how people experience aspects of their lives, how individuals and/or groups behave, how organizations function, and how interactions shape relationships. In qualitative research, the researcher is the main data collection instrument. The researcher examines why events occur, what happens, and what those events mean to the participants studied. 1 , 2

Qualitative research starts from a fundamentally different set of beliefs—or paradigms—than those that underpin quantitative research. Quantitative research is based on positivist beliefs that there is a singular reality that can be discovered with the appropriate experimental methods. Post-positivist researchers agree with the positivist paradigm, but believe that environmental and individual differences, such as the learning culture or the learners' capacity to learn, influence this reality, and that these differences are important. Constructivist researchers believe that there is no single reality, but that the researcher elicits participants' views of reality. 3 Qualitative research generally draws on post-positivist or constructivist beliefs.

Qualitative scholars develop their work from these beliefs—usually post-positivist or constructivist—using different approaches to conduct their research. In this Rip Out, we describe 3 different qualitative research approaches commonly used in medical education: grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology. Each acts as a pivotal frame that shapes the research question(s), the method(s) of data collection, and how data are analyzed. 4 , 5

Choosing a Qualitative Approach

Before engaging in any qualitative study, consider how your views about what is possible to study will affect your approach. Then select an appropriate approach within which to work. Alignment between the belief system underpinning the research approach, the research question, and the research approach itself is a prerequisite for rigorous qualitative research. To enhance the understanding of how different approaches frame qualitative research, we use this introductory challenge as an illustrative example.

The clinic rotation in a program director's training program was recently redesigned as a longitudinal clinical experience. Resident satisfaction with this rotation improved significantly following implementation of the new longitudinal experience. The program director wants to understand how the changes made in the clinic rotation translated into changes in learning experiences for the residents.

Qualitative research can support this program director's efforts. Qualitative research focuses on the events that transpire and on outcomes of those events from the perspectives of those involved. In this case, the program director can use qualitative research to understand the impact of the new clinic rotation on the learning experiences of residents. The next step is to decide which approach to use as a frame for the study.

The table lists the purpose of 3 commonly used approaches to frame qualitative research. For each frame, we provide an example of a research question that could direct the study and delineate what outcomes might be gained by using that particular approach.

Methodology Overview

How You Can Start TODAY

• 1 Examine the foundations of the existing literature: As part of the literature review, make note of what is known about the topic and which approaches have been used in prior studies. A decision should be made to determine the extent to which the new study is exploratory and the extent to which findings will advance what is already known about the topic.
• 2 Find a qualitatively skilled collaborator: If you are interested in doing qualitative research, you should consult with a qualitative expert. Be prepared to talk to the qualitative scholar about what you would like to study and why . Furthermore, be ready to describe the literature to date on the topic (remember, you are asking for this person's expertise regarding qualitative approaches—he or she won't necessarily have content expertise). Qualitative research must be designed and conducted with rigor (rigor will be discussed in Rip Out No. 8 of this series). Input from a qualitative expert will ensure that rigor is employed from the study's inception.
• 3 Consider the approach: With a literature review completed and a qualitatively skilled collaborator secured, it is time to decide which approach would be best suited to answering the research question. Questions to consider when weighing approaches might include the following:
• • Will my findings contribute to the creation of a theoretical model to better understand the area of study? ( grounded theory )
• • Will I need to spend an extended amount of time trying to understand the culture and process of a particular group of learners in their natural context? ( ethnography )
• • Is there a particular phenomenon I want to better understand/describe? ( phenomenology )

What You Can Do LONG TERM

• 1 Develop your qualitative research knowledge and skills : A basic qualitative research textbook is a valuable investment to learn about qualitative research (further reading is provided as online supplemental material). A novice qualitative researcher will also benefit from participating in a massive online open course or a mini-course (often offered by professional organizations or conferences) that provides an introduction to qualitative research. Most of all, collaborating with a qualitative researcher can provide the support necessary to design, execute, and report on the study.
• 2 Undertake a pilot study: After learning about qualitative methodology, the next best way to gain expertise in qualitative research is to try it in a small scale pilot study with the support of a qualitative expert. Such application provides an appreciation for the thought processes that go into designing a study, analyzing the data, and reporting on the findings. Alternatively, if you have the opportunity to work on a study led by a qualitative expert, take it! The experience will provide invaluable opportunities for learning how to engage in qualitative research.

Supplementary Material

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the US government.

References and Resources for Further Reading

• Duke NetID Login
• 919.660.1100
• Duke Health Badge: 24-hour access
• Accounts & Access
• Databases, Journals & Books
• Request & Reserve
• Training & Consulting
• Request Articles & Books
• Renew Online
• Reserve Spaces
• Reserve a Locker
• Study & Meeting Rooms
• Course Reserves
• Pay Fines/Fees
• Recommend a Purchase
• Access From Off Campus
• Building Access
• Computers & Equipment
• Wifi Access
• My Accounts
• Mobile Apps
• Known Access Issues
• Report an Access Issue
• All Databases
• Article Databases
• Basic Sciences
• Clinical Sciences
• Dissertations & Theses
• Drugs, Chemicals & Toxicology
• Grants & Funding
• Interprofessional Education
• Non-Medical Databases
• Search for E-Journals
• Search for Print & E-Journals
• Search for E-Books
• Search for Print & E-Books
• E-Book Collections
• Biostatistics
• Global Health
• MBS Program
• Medical Students
• MMCi Program
• Occupational Therapy
• Path Asst Program
• Physical Therapy
• Population Health
• Researchers
• Community Partners

Conducting Research

• Archival & Historical Research
• Black History at Duke Health
• Data Analytics & Viz Software
• Data: Find and Share
• Evidence-Based Practice
• NIH Public Access Policy Compliance
• Publication Metrics

Qualitative Research

• Searching Animal Alternatives
• Systematic Reviews
• Test Instruments

Using Databases

• JCR Impact Factors
• Web of Science

Finding & Accessing

• COVID-19: Core Clinical Resources
• Health Literacy
• Health Statistics & Data
• Library Orientation

Writing & Citing

• Creating Links
• Getting Published
• Reference Mgmt
• Scientific Writing

Meet a Librarian

• Request a Consultation
• Find Your Liaisons
• Register for a Class
• Request a Class
• Self-Paced Learning

Search Services

• Literature Search
• Systematic Review
• Animal Alternatives (IACUC)
• Research Impact

Citation Mgmt

• Other Software

Scholarly Communications

• About Scholarly Communications
• Publish Your Work
• Measure Your Research Impact
• Engage in Open Science
• Libraries and Publishers
• Directions & Maps
• Floor Plans

Library Updates

• Annual Snapshot
• Conference Presentations
• Contact Information
• Gifts & Donations
• Books, Tutorials, Terminology

Conference/Workshop Reports

• Other Websites
• Search Strategies & Filters
• Qualitative Research Guidelines Project Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.Website developed as a comprehensive guide for designing, writing, reviewing, and reporting qualitative healthcare research. Includes sections on research paradigms and traditions, common methods and analytical approaches, evaluative criteria, pitfalls, and guidelines.
• Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Briggs Institute
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Univ. of York and National Institute for Health Research, UK. Includes wealth of information.
• Integrative Approaches to Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence, Health Development Agency (now National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), UK (2004)
• Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide Family Health International (2005)
• Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research: Cultural Anthropology, Law and Social Science, Political Science, and Sociology Programs National Science Foundation (2005)
• Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research National Science Foundation (2004)
• Qualitative Methods in Health Research: Opportunities and Consideration in Application and Review National Institutes of Health (1999)
• << Previous: Books, Tutorials, Terminology
• Next: Other Websites >>
• Last Updated: Jul 16, 2024 5:30 PM
• URL: https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/qualitative
• Duke Health
• Duke University
• Duke Libraries
• Medical Center Archives
• Duke Directory
• Seeley G. Mudd Building
• 10 Searle Drive
• [email protected]

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Subject Guides

Qualitative Research Methods & Tools

• Qualitative Research - Getting Started
• UNM Resources & Support
• Training & Support beyond UNM
• Qualitative Data Analysis Software (NVIVO, etc.)
• Finding Qualitative Studies and Data

QDA software like NVIVO helps you to organize and code your data.  If you are not familiar with coding, watch this short tutorial, Coding Your Data , for an overview and consider doing more reading on qualitative research in general to help you better plan your project.  

Indigenous & Critical Research Methods

Indigenous and critical research methods challenge Euro-Western epistemologies and methods and provide frameworks for alternative ways of knowing.

To learn more, search for the term "indigenous" or "critical" in the Sage Research Methods ebook database or visit this guide from the University of Victoria for some suggested books.

Doing Fieldwork in a Pandemic

• COVID 19 Resources, Harvard Contemporary Ethnography & Inequalitty Workshop Harvard's Contemporary Ethnography & Inequality Workshop has put together a list of links and resources related to conducting qualitative research during the pandemic. Includes info on alternative data collection methods, etc.
• COVID 19 & the Social Sciences, SSRC (Social Science Research Council) Includes a useful section, COVID 19 & the Social Sciences Essays Forum, exploring the human, social, political and ethical dimensions of the pandemic, including this essay on Resuming Field Research in Pandemic Times .
• Association of Internet Researchers - Ethics Working Committee's Guidelines & Reports To ensure that research on and about the Internet is conducted in an ethical and professional manner, the Ethics Working Committee, composed of ethicists and researchers from various regions and countries, has produced three major reports to assist researchers in making ethical decisions in their research and serve as a starting point for their inquiries and reflection.

Questions about Qual Research & Methods? START HERE!

What is Qualitative Research

Below are a few websites with basic introductions to qualitative research:

• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Qualitative Research Guidelines Project A website created to help people in developing, evaluating and engaging in qualitative research projects in healthcare settings - but useful for all types of researchers. Provides nice overviews of methods, etc.
• Get Your Qual On is a YouTube channel started in 2016 by Dr. Sarah J. Tracy of ASU about qualitative research methods.  Her first set of videos is about how to think about and begin a qualitative research project. 

Recommended reading

• Try searching the library catalog with the phrase  "qualitative research"  (in quotation marks) to find books at UNM or explore some of the recommended titles below (or contact Liz Cooper, Social Sciences Librarian, [email protected], for a list of recommended books).
• Download  NYU Data Services' Working Bibliography of QDA Literature of the Field  (2016) for a list of recommended books on qualitative research.

Social Sciences Librarian

• Next: UNM Resources & Support >>
• Last Updated: Aug 15, 2024 3:42 PM
• URL: https://libguides.unm.edu/qual

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Qualitative research approaches

Approach	What does it involve?
Grounded theory	Researchers collect rich data on a topic of interest and develop theories .
	Researchers immerse themselves in groups or organizations to understand their cultures.
Action research	Researchers and participants collaboratively link theory to practice to drive social change.
Phenomenological research	Researchers investigate a phenomenon or event by describing and interpreting participants’ lived experiences.
Narrative research	Researchers examine how stories are told to understand how participants perceive and make sense of their experiences.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative data analysis

Approach	When to use	Example
	To describe and categorize common words, phrases, and ideas in qualitative data.	A market researcher could perform content analysis to find out what kind of language is used in descriptions of therapeutic apps.
	To identify and interpret patterns and themes in qualitative data.	A psychologist could apply thematic analysis to travel blogs to explore how tourism shapes self-identity.
	To examine the content, structure, and design of texts.	A media researcher could use textual analysis to understand how news coverage of celebrities has changed in the past decade.
	To study communication and how language is used to achieve effects in specific contexts.	A political scientist could use discourse analysis to study how politicians generate trust in election campaigns.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 6, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• UNC Libraries
• HSL Subject Research
• Qualitative Research Resources
• Assessing Qualitative Research

Qualitative Research Resources: Assessing Qualitative Research

Created by health science librarians.

• What is Qualitative Research?
• Qualitative Research Basics
• Special Topics
• Training Opportunities: UNC & Beyond
• Help at UNC
• Qualitative Software for Coding/Analysis
• Software for Audio, Video, Online Surveys
• Finding Qualitative Studies

About this Page

Legend (let evidence guide every new decision) assessment tools: cincinnati children's hospital, equator network: enhancing the quality and transparency of health research, other tools for assessing qualitative research.

• Writing Up Your Research
• Integrating Qualitative Research into Systematic Reviews
• Publishing Qualitative Research
• Presenting Qualitative Research
• Qualitative & Libraries: a few gems
• Data Repositories

Why is this information important?

• Qualitative research typically focuses on collecting very detailed information on a few cases and often addresses meaning, rather than objectively identifiable factors.
• This means that typical markers of research quality for quantitative studies, such as validity and reliability, cannot be used to assess qualitative research.

On this page you'll find:

The resources on this page will guide you to some of the alternative measures/tools or means you can use to assess qualitative research.

Evidence Evaluation Tools and Resources

This website has a number of resources for evaluating health sciences research across a variety of designs/study types, including an Evidence Appraisal form for qualitative research (in table), as well as forms for mixed methods studies from a variety of clinical question domains. The site includes information on the following:

• Evaluating the Evidence Algorithm (pdf download)
• Evidence Appraisal Forms ( see Domain of Clinical Questions Table )
• Table of Evidence Levels (pdf download)
• Grading a Body of Evidence (pdf download)
• Judging the Strength of a Recommendation (pdf download)
• LEGEND Glossary (pdf download)
• EQUATOR: Qualitative Research Reporting Guidelines
• EQUATOR Network Home

The EQUATOR Network is an ‘umbrella’ organisation that brings together researchers, medical journal editors, peer reviewers, developers of reporting guidelines, research funding bodies and other collaborators with mutual interest in improving the quality of research publications and of research itself. 

The EQUATOR Library contains a comprehensive searchable database of reporting guidelines for many study types--including qualitative--and also links to other resources relevant to research reporting:

• Library for health research reporting:  provides an up-to-date collection of guidelines and policy documents related to health research reporting. These are aimed mainly at authors of research articles, journal editors, peer reviewers and reporting guideline developers.
• Toolkits to support writing research, using guidelines, teaching research skills, selecting the appropriate reporting guideline
• Courses and events
• Librarian Network

Also see Articles box, below, some of which contain checklists or tools. 

Most checklists or tools are meant to help you think critically and systematically when appraising research.  Users should generally consult accompanying materials such as manuals, handbooks, and cited literature to use these tools appropriately.  Broad understanding of the variety and complexity of qualitative research is generally necessary, along with an understanding of the philosophical perspectives plus knowledge about specific qualitative research methods and their implementation.  

• CASP/Critical Assessment Skills Programme Tool for Evaluating Qualitative Research 2018
• CASP Knowledge Hub Includes critical appraisal checklists for key study designs; glossary of key research terms; key links related to evidence based healthcare, statistics, and research; a bibliography of articles and research papers about CASP and other critical appraisal tools and approaches 1993-2012.
• (Joanna Briggs Institute) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (2024) See the following chapters: Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Includes appendices: • Appendix 2.1: Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research • Appendix 2.2: Discussion of Qualitative critical appraisal criteria • Appendix 2.3 Qualitative data extraction tool Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews more... less... Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
• McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Front Page Public wiki site for the MMAT: The MMAT is intended to be used as a checklist for concomitantly appraising and/or describing studies included in systematic mixed studies reviews (reviews including original qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies). The MMAT was first published in 2009. Since then, it has been validated in several studies testing its interrater reliability, usability and content validity. The latest version of the MMAT was updated in 2018.
• McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 User Guide See full site (public wiki link above) for additional information, including FAQ's, references and resources, earlier versions, and more.
• McMaster University Critical Review Form & Guidelines for Qualitative Studies v2.0 Includes links to Qualitative Review Form (v2.0) and accompanying Guidelines from the Evidence Based Practice Research Group of McMaster University's School of Rehabilitation Science). Links are also provided for Spanish, German, and French versions.
• NICE Quality Appraisal Checklist-Qualitative Studies, 3rd ed, 2012, from UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Includes checklist and notes on its use. From Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance, 3rd edition. more... less... Produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence © Copyright National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006 (updated 2012). All rights reserved. This material may be freely reproduced for educational and not-for-profit purposes. No reproduction by or for commercial organisations, or for commercial purposes, is allowed without the express written permission of the Institute.
• NICE Quality Appraisal Checklist-Qualitative Studies, 3rd ed. (.pdf download) Appendix H Checklist and Notes download. © Copyright National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006 (updated 2012). All rights reserved. This material may be freely reproduced for educational and not-for-profit purposes. No reproduction by or for commercial organisations, or for commercial purposes, is allowed without the express written permission of the Institute.
• Qualitative Research Review Guidelines, RATS
• SBU Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services Evaluation and synthesis of studies using qualitative methods of analysis, 2016. Appendix 2 of this document (at the end) contains a checklist for evaluating qualitative research. more... less... SBU. Evaluation and synthesis of studies using qualitative methods of analysis. Stockholm: Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU); 2016.
• Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed (JAMA Evidence) Chapter 13.5 Qualitative Research
• Slides: Appraising Qualitative Research from Users' Guide to the Medical Literature, 3rd edition Click on the 'Related Content' tab to find the link to download the Appraising Qualitative Research slides.

These articles address a range of issues related to understanding and evaluating qualitative research; some  include checklists or tools.

Clissett, P. (2008) "Evaluating Qualitative Research." Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing 12: 99-105.

Cohen, Deborah J. and Benjamin F. Crabtree. (2008) "Evidence for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations." Annals of Family Medicine 6(4): 331-339.

• Supplemental Appendix 1. Search Strategy for Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care
• Supplemental Appendix 2. Publications Analyzed: Health Care Journals and Frequently Referenced Books and Book Chapters (1980-2005) That Posited Criteria for "Good" Qualitative Research.

Dixon-Woods, M.,  R.L. Shaw, S. Agarwal, and J.A. Smith. (2004) "The Problem of Appraising Qualitative Research." Qual Safe Health Care 13: 223-225.

Fossey, E., C. Harvey, F. McDermott, and L. Davidson. (2002) "Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36(6): 717-732.

Hammarberg, K., M. Kirkman, S. de Lacey. (2016) "Qualitative Research Methods: When to Use and How to Judge them." Human Reproduction 31 (3): 498-501.

Lee, J. (2014) "Genre-Appropriate Judgments of Qualitative Research." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44(3): 316-348. (This provides 3 strategies for evaluating qualitative research, 2 that the author is not crazy about and one that he considers more appropriate/accurate).

Majid, Umair and Vanstone,Meredith (2018). "Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools." Qualitative Health Research  28(13): 2115-2131.   PMID: 30047306 DOI:  10.1177/1049732318785358

Meyrick, Jane. (2006) "What is Good Qualitative Research? A First Step towards a Comprehensive Approach to Judging Rigour/Quality." Journal of Health Psychology 11(5): 799-808.

Miles, MB, AM Huberman, J Saldana. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis.  Thousand Oaks, Califorinia, SAGE Publications, Inc. Chapter 11: Drawing and Verifying Conclusions . Check Availability of Print Book . 

Morse, JM. (1997) "Perfectly Healthy but Dead:"The Myth of Inter-Rater Reliability. Qualitative Health Research 7(4): 445-447.  

O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. (2014) Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations . Acad Med 89(9):1245–1251. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 PMID: 24979285

The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met. The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.

Ryan, Frances, Michael Coughlin, and Patricia Cronin. (2007) "Step by Step Guide to Critiquing Research: Part 2, Qualitative Research." British Journal of Nursing 16(12): 738-744.

Stige, B, K. Malterud, and T. Midtgarden. (2009) "Toward an Agenda for Evaluation of Qualitative Research." Qualitative Health Research 19(10): 1504-1516.

Tong, Allison and Mary Amanda Dew. (2016-EPub ahead of print). "Qualitative Research in Transplantation: Ensuring Relevance and Rigor. "   Transplantation 

Allison Tong, Peter Sainsbury, Jonathan Craig; Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups , International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 19, Issue 6, 1 December 2007, Pages 349–357, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting.

Tracy, Sarah (2010) “Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big-Tent’ Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16(10):837-51

• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
• IMPSCI (Implementation Science) Tutorials
• Johns Hopkins: Why Mixed Methods?
• Measuring, Learning, and Evaluation Project for the Urban Reproductive Health Initiative This project ran 2010-2015. Some project resources are still available.
• NIH OBSSR (Office of Behavioral & Social Sciences Research) Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in Health Sciences, 2011 The OBSSR commissioned a team in 2010 to develop a resource that would provide guidance to NIH investigators on how to rigorously develop and evaluate mixed methods research applications. more... less... John W. Creswell, Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln Ann Carroll Klassen, Ph.D., Drexel University Vicki L. Plano Clark, Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln Katherine Clegg Smith, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University With the Assistance of a Specially Appointed Working Group
• NIH OBSSR eSource: Introductory Social and Behavioral Science Training Materials eSource is a collection of online chapters that provide an introduction to selected behavioral and social science research approaches, including theory development and testing, survey methods, measurement, and study design. more... less... Link not working on OBSSR website, here https://obssr.od.nih.gov/about-us/publications/ Formerly: https://obssr-archive.od.nih.gov/pdf/Qualitative.PDF
• NSF Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research On May 19-20, 2005, a workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research was held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, Virginia. The workshop was cofunded by a grant from four NSF Programs—Cultural Anthropology, Law and Social Science, Political Science, and Sociology… It is well recognized that each of the four disciplines have different research design and evaluation cultures as well as considerable variability in the emphasis on interpretation and explanation, commitment to constructivist and positivist epistemologies, and the degree of perceived consensus about the value and prominence of qualitative research methods. more... less... Within this multidisciplinary and multimethods context, twenty-four scholars from the four disciplines were charged to (1) articulate the standards used in their particular field to ensure rigor across the range of qualitative methodological approaches;1* (2) identify common criteria shared across the four disciplines for designing and evaluating research proposals and fostering multidisciplinary collaborations; and (3) develop an agenda for strengthening the tools, training, data, research design, and infrastructure for research using qualitative approaches.
• Technical Note: Mixed-Methods Evaluations (USAID) This open source resource from USAID (2013) discusses the mixing of qualitative and quantitative methods in mixed methods research.
• Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide (2005) From FHI 360/Family Health International with support from US AID. Natasha Mack, Cynthia Woodsong, Kathleen M. MacQueen, Greg Guest, and Emily Name. The guide is divided into five modules covering the following topics: Module 1 – Qualitative Research Methods Overview Module 2 – Participant Observation Module 3 – In-Depth Interviews Module 4 – Focus Groups Module 5 – Data Documentation and Management
• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Guidelines for Designing, Analyzing, and Reporting Qualitative Research
• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Qualitative Research Guidelines Project

Qualitative Literacy

Not a checklist, this is a thorough discussion of assessing the scientific merit of a study based on in-depth interviews or participant observation, first by assessing exposure (e.g. time exposed in the field). Then, assuming sufficient exposure, the authors propose looking for signs of

• cognitive empathy, how those interviewed or observed perceive themselves and their social world, the meaning they attach to those perceptions, the motives they express for their actions 
• palpability: the evidence would be palpable or concrete rather than abstract or general
• heterogeneity: showing diversity across people, over time, among situations, or between contexts 
• follow-up: responding to the unexpected; following up on unanticipated statements or observations 
• self-awareness: showing that the author is explicitly aware of the impact of their presence on who was accessed and what they disclosed
• << Previous: Finding Qualitative Studies
• Next: Writing Up Your Research >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2024 4:11 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/qual

Let your search flow

Explore perspectives, what is a perspective.

Perspectives are different frameworks from which to explore the knowledge around sustainable sanitation and water management. Perspectives are like filters: they compile and structure the information that relate to a given focus theme, region or context. This allows you to quickly navigate to the content of your particular interest while promoting the holistic understanding of sustainable sanitation and water management.

Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Semi-structured interviews

This document describes the characteristics of semi-structured interviews, how to use it and what the benefits of this interview technique are.

Subscribe to our newsletter

-->

> > - checking out the consistency of findings generated by different data collection methods.  - examining the consistency of different data sources from within the same method.  For example: - using multiple analyst to review findings or using multiple observers and analysts to seek consensus, but to understand multiple ways of seeing the data - using multiple theoretical perspectives to examine and interpret the data . 10(3) pp. 378-395. . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. . New York: McGraw-Hill. . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. . 320(7226), 50-52. . 34 (5) Part II. pp. 1189-1208. (2nd Edition). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

	© RWJF 2008 P.O. Box 2316 College Road East and Route 1 Princeton, NJ 08543	-->Citation: Cohen D, Crabtree B. "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project." July 2006.