Philosophy and quality? TAPUPASM as an approach to rigour in critical realist research

Abstract

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

Do you see what I see? Enhancement of rigour in qualitative approaches to inquiry: a systematic review of evidence

“…Research aims to generate new knowledge that can develop understanding within a field of study (Rolfe, 2006;Cook, 2009), which is evaluated in terms of "truth" as a marker of rigour (Stewart et al, 2017;Hamilton, 2020). Truth within qualitative enquiry has been associated with the authentic portrayal of participants' experiences or perceptions (Stewart et al, 2017;Hamilton, 2020;Ryan and Rutty, 2019). Thick and detailed data is often sought in the pursuit of truth within qualitative research (Barusch et al, 2011 andHamilton, 2020), taking the form of deep insight into particular phenomena, with detailed insights into the processes undertaken to reach the conclusions drawn (Barusch et al, 2011).…”

“…Participants' ability to communicate effectively with the researcher (Rolfe, 2006;Stewart et al, 2017, Ryan andRutty, 2019) Impact of research design on participant responses (Kidd and Parshall, 2000) Impact of research context on insights generated (Stewart et al, 2017) Building of trust between researcher and participants (Hamilton, 2020) Participants as partners in knowledge generation (Smith et al, 2013) Descriptive Theme 4: rigour in research design and implementation Complexity associated with researching social contexts (Maggs-Rapport, 2001) Concept of "mess" in action research (Cook, 2009) Engagement with complexity through researcher immersion (Rettke et al, 2018) Alignment of research methods with research questions/aims (Penn and Lloyd, 2007;Armour et al, 2009;Hamilton, 2020) Systematic approach to rigour embedded in the research design (Johnson et al, 2020) Flexibility in the research design to enable dynamic adjustments to enhance rigour (Kane et al, 2008;Cypress, 2017) (continued ) (Rettke et al, 2018) Power imbalance (between researcher and participant) (Jakobsen. 2012) Distance between interpreter and subject (Cook, 2009) Active seeking out of subjectivity (Bradbury-Jones, 2007) Balance between prolonged engagement and distance (Kidd and Parshall, 2000;Cook, 2009) Reflexivity Self-interrogation to identify internal conflict and paradox (Bradbury-Jones, 2007) Critical and reflective practice (Bradbury-Jones, 2007) Recognition of subjectivity (Darawsheh, 2014) Continual self-critique (Rettk et al, 2018) Enhances transparency (Darawsheh, 2014) Descriptive Theme 6: reader confidence and transparency Reader confidence (Hays et al, 2016) Participant communication of truth to the researcher (Rolfe, 2006;Stewart et al, 2017) Credibility achieved by generating confidence (Barusch et al, 2011) Reflexivity enhancing reader confidence (Darawsheh, 2014) Openness (Barusch et...…”

“…Components of the conceptualisation of research quality as "trustworthiness" within an interpretivist paradigm (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) Equivalent construct for conceptualising rigour within a positivist paradigm (Rolfe, 2006;Stewart et al, 2017;Ryan and Rutty, 2019). Clear communication between participant and researcher enables a shared understanding to be established (Dempsey, 2018), which is influenced by the research design and skill of the researcher (Stewart et al, 2017).…”

“…It is also necessary to acknowledge that conceptions of truth are dependent on the specific research context being explored as the participants' experiences and perceptions will vary depending on the situation they are in (Stewart et al, 2017). For an enquiry to lead to high quality insights, Maggs-Rapport ( 2001) and Ryan and Rutty (2019) highlight the importance of conclusions remaining evidence based and being built on faithful representation of participants' experiences.…”

Exploring public perspectives of e-professionalism in nursing

“…Ethical approval, including consent and confidentiality procedures was successfully obtained from the researchers' institutional Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC-2796) with reciprocal ethical approval from the partner higher education institution. Rigour was applied in line with the transparency, accuracy, propriety, utility, purposivity, accuracy, specificity and modified objectivity framework (TAPUPASM) as described in Ryan & Rutty (2019).…”