This term is used to describe the tendency of some researchers to combine qualitative research approaches without adequately acknowledging the epistemological (knowledge) origins and assumptions that underpin the methodologies they are blending
QUALITIATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDE
Use the following guide to assist in understanding the Qualitative critique process:
- Is the research method for the qualitative study identified? If none was identified, can one be inferred? If more than one was identified, is this justifiable or does it suggest “method slurring” (This term is used to describe the tendency of some researchers to combine qualitative research approaches without adequately acknowledging the epistemological (knowledge) origins and assumptions that underpin the methodologies they are blending)
- Does the study purpose match the study design? Was the best possible design (or research method) used to address the study purpose? Is the research question congruent with a qualitative approach and with the specific research method?
- Is the design appropriate, given the research question? Does the design lend itself to a through, in-depth, intensive examination of the phenomenon of interest?
- Does the report describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for the study? If not, does the absence of a framework detract from the significance of the research or its conceptual integration?
- Given the nature of the data, was the data analysis approach appropriate for the research design?
- Is the category scheme described? If so, does the scheme appear logical and complete? Does there seem to be unnecessary overlap or redundancy in the categories? Were manual methods used to index and organize the data, or was a computer program used?
- Did the report adequately describe the process by which the actual analysis was preformed? Did the report indicate whose approach to data analysis was used (e.g., Glaserian or Straussian, in grounded theory studies)?
- What major themes or processes emerged? If excerpts from the data are provided, do the themes appear to capture the meaning of the narratives?
- What evidence did the report provide that the analysis is accurate and replicable? Were data displayed in a manner that allows you to verify the researcher’s conclusions?
- Did the analysis yield a meaningful and insightful picture of the phenomenon under study? Did the report give you a clear picture of the social or emotional world of study participants?
- Which specific techniques (if any) did the researcher use to enhance the trustworthiness and integrity of the inquiry? Where these strategies used judiciously and to good effect? Given the efforts to enhance data quality, what can you conclude about the study’s validity/integrity/rigor/trustworthiness? Does the report adequately address the transferability of the findings?
- Did the report discuss any study limitations and their possible effects on the credibility of the results or on interpretations of the data? Were results interpreted in light of findings from other studies? Did the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice or future research?
