Complexity of the Paradigms Present in Quality Criteria of Qualitative Research Grids

Abstract

With qualitative methods being increasingly used in health science fields, numerous grids proposing criteria to evaluate the quality of this type of research have been produced. Expert evaluators deem that there is a lack of consensual tools to evaluate qualitative research. Based on the review of 133 quality criteria grids for qualitative research in health sciences, the authors present the results of a computerized lexicometric analysis, which confirms the variety of intra-and inter-grid constructions, including within the same field. This variety is linked to the authors' paradigmatic references underlying the criteria proposed. These references seem to be built intuitively, reflecting internal representations of qualitative research, thus making the grids and their criteria hard to compare. Consequently, the consensus on the definitions and the number of criteria becomes problematic. The paradigmatic and theoretical references of the grids should be specified so that users could better assess their contributions and limitations.

The pursuit of quality in grounded theory

“…Thus, different epistemologies, ideals, aims etc. between different versions of grounded theory have to be considered when evaluating quality and discussing quality criteria for grounded theory (for overviews of similarities and differences between Glaserian, Straussian and constructivist grounded theory approaches, see Berthelsen, Grimshaw-Aagaard, and Hansen 2018;Thornberg 2017; for further discussions about the link between epistemology and quality criteria, see for example; Healy and Perry 2000; Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba 2018;Lützhöft, Nyce, and Petersen 2010;Santiago-Deleofosse et al 2015).…”

Healing the Past by Nurturing the Future: Aboriginal parents’ views of what helps support recovery from complex trauma

“…Indigenist paradigms recognise ongoing oppression, transgenerational trauma and grief for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and aim to assist decolonisation through a process of empowering and privileging Aboriginal worldviews and self-determination (Walter and Suina, 2019). The epistemological position is constructivist/ interpretivist, acknowledging multiple realities which must be constructed and interpreted within a social, cultural and temporal context (Santiago-Delefosse et al, 2015). The specific research study described in this manuscript draws upon foundations of an Indigenist paradigm to also critically engage constructivist grounded theory methods (Mills et al, 2006).…”

The past and present of triangulation and social representations theory: A crossed history

“…Validity criteria from quantitative research are not transposable to QR because of epistemological and ontological differences (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Various attempts were made to develop suitable validity criteria specific to QR (for a review see Santiago-Delefosse et al, 2015). However, the wide diversity of QR made it impossible to propose well-defined criteria without the risk of excluding certain qualitative approaches.…”