Key concepts for quality as foundational in qualitative research: milkshakes, mirrors and maps in 3D

Abstract

With increasing calls for evidence-based practice within the discipline of psychology in South Africa alongside the now established value of qualitative methodologies, qualitative research that is both relevant and methodologically sound is of vital importance. Internationally, the recognition of the need for criteria with which to evaluate qualitative research has generated a number of useful and important guidelines. Integrating these already existing guidelines, this article outlines four key concepts useful in pursuing quality in qualitative research: coherence, reflexivity, rigour and richness. To thicken these concepts, I use analogies and draw on examples from my own research. The article is aimed at teachers, consumers, reviewers and producers of qualitative research within psychology in South Africa with the purpose of fostering a particular attitude towards quality markers as foundational rather than additional to qualitative research.

How to learn to love your research ethics committee: recommendations for psychologists

“…In this article, we essentially argue that psychological researchers should strive to be as rigorous about the ethical aspects of their work as they are about the rigour of their research methodology (see Laher, 2016; Saville Young, 2016). We also argue that undergraduate and postgraduate research training programmes in psychology should devote more time to research ethics training, using a systematic framework (Wassenaar & Mamotte, 2012a).…”

“…Arguments by social scientists objecting to ethics review on the grounds that research ethics is biomedically derived are simplistic and overlook the fact that biomedical research and psychological research cannot be judged by different moral standards (Macklin, 2002). Also, some commentators protest that ethics review of social science research seems to constitute a form of tyranny (Cribb, 2004; Schrag, 2009; Wassenaar & Mamotte, 2012a), yet do not object to requirements that their research methodology, whether qualitative or quantitative (see Laher, this issue; Saville Young, 2016), be systematic, defensible, rigorous, and reproducible. Just as poor methodology can compromise the validity and utility of findings, poor ethics can undermine the social value of research.…”

Ostinato rigore: establishing methodological rigour in quantitative research

“…The objective nature of this type of research is clearly evident from the systematic and structured manner in which these guidelines can be provided. This is in contrast to Saville-Young (in press) who provides a discussion of rigour in qualitative methods.…”

“…This is followed by the aspects to consider when ensuring methodological rigour in quantitative studies. The article focuses specifically on quantitative methods, while qualitative research is the subject of an accompanying paper in this issue (Saville-Young, in press). A search on Google and Google Scholar on ‘methodological rigour’ also revealed that much had been written about rigour in qualitative and mixed-methods studies, but fairly little has been written on quantitative studies.…”