Abstract
The field of qualitative scientific inquiry employs a fast-growing variety of approaches, whose traditions, procedures, and structures vary, depending on the type of study design and methodology (i.e., phenomenological, ethnographic, grounded theory, case study, action research, etc.). With the interpretive approach, researchers do not utilize the same measures of validity used in positivist approaches to scientific inquiry, since there is "...no one standard or accepted structure as one typically finds in quantitative research" (Creswell, 2007). With the absence of a single standard, how, then, is it possible for qualitative researchers to know whether or not their study was done with rigor, that it has validity, that it is ready to submit to their peers? The research literature is sprinkled with references to quality in qualitative inquiry, which helps to construe a study's validity. Markula (2008) suggests that we validate our study's findings by assuring readers that it was done "in the best possible way." While each research tradition has its own set of criteria for judging quality, we present here general concepts drawn from the literature. We hope this article will provide a framework from which qualitative researchers can judge their work before submitting it to their peers¸ one which will help ensure that their study was done "in the best possible way."
Highlights
Ensuring quality in qualitative inquiry. For those of us who investigate “multiple truths” and constructed meanings, those whose ontological and epistemological perspectives are expressed through qualitative methods of inquiry, it makes little use to employ positivist definitions of validity (Henderson, 2006)
With the ever-increasing multitude of approaches to qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 2007, p. 36-37), studies vary in traditions, procedures, and structures, depending on the type of study design and approach.there is “...no one standard or accepted structure as one typically finds in quantitative research” (Creswell, 2007, p. 42)
Each of the growing number of approaches used in qualitative inquiry has traditions, procedures, and structures that are specific to the approach, including methods for data collection and analyses
Summary
For those of us who investigate “multiple truths” and constructed meanings, those whose ontological and epistemological perspectives are expressed through qualitative methods of inquiry, it makes little use to employ positivist definitions of validity (Henderson, 2006). The attempts seem to fail to clarify the author’s true epistemological stance, because it is not until deep into her paper, in her “methods” section—what she refers to as “Methodologies...,” that Abbas declares her methodology Curiously, she does so tentatively, almost incidentally, revealing at last that she employs what can loosely be defined as a “critical discourse analysis” (and a critical theory stance) to examine the sample texts she has chosen. She does so tentatively, almost incidentally, revealing at last that she employs what can loosely be defined as a “critical discourse analysis” (and a critical theory stance) to examine the sample texts she has chosen It is not until this point in her study as well that she clearly indicates what the subjects of her analysis are; until now she has made only vague references to the objects/subjects of her inquiry. Is her study based on a realist paradigm, critical theory, a critical realist paradigm, what? What is her methodology? Abbas does not make herself clear in this regard, providing justification and, validation for her study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
