Qualitative research as evidence: criteria for rigour and relevance

Abstract

This paper is about the nature and construct of evidence and its relation to qualitative research. Using a post-modern lens, we begin by defining evidence, signifying the importance of context, and use discourse as a vehicle for looking at the ways in which qualitative research evidence struggles to achieve the equivalent standing of its quantitative counterpart. In outlining the role of discourse in the creation of research paradigms, we offer a conceptual map that enables a repositioning of qualitative research in the evidence-based genre. In order to best illustrate our standpoint, we then provide two examples of qualitative, transformational research approaches and relate these to the criteria of rigour and relevance, criteria which we would argue when met are examples of high-quality evidence. Having used the examples of discourse analysis and auto-ethnography, we then conclude by exposing and decentralising the myth that surrounds the discourse of evidencebased practice, which continues, albeit unintentionally, to discredit any evidence that falls outside of its parameters.

What difference does dance make? Critical conversations across dance, physical activity and public health

“…Pawson (2003) states how the potential for 'transferability' of programmes is a raison d'etre of much evaluation-based research; however, against the ideal of transferability, dialogue such as ours also illustrates degrees of incommensurability in cross-paradigmatic communication (Wight, 1996). It indicates that qualitative research is still seeking to establish 'rigour' in evidence based research (Freshwater et al 2010). …”

“…For example, there is an ongoing tension of how programmes and/or interventions arguably have to negotiate between 'buttering up' in the sense of courting favour and yet at times 'butting up' against (current) dominant policy and decision making contexts which seek evidence of a particular (positivist) kind (Freshwater, et al 2010). Public health's underpinning of epidemiology informs a research agenda informed by (hard) 'evidence' and (medical) 'science' (Oliver, et al 2013;Roe and Lysaker, 2012).…”

“…Whilst we do not address the value or impact of the dance programme directly we suggest that it allows opportunities to consider critically the unique position dance represents when we start to unpack on-going tensions surrounding the effective 'measurement' of health related programmes, including evidence based and values based research (Freshwater, et al 2010). We are also cognisant of discourses within discourses, thus some terms and expressions may well require analysis in their own right beyond our musings here, such as 'health inequalities', 'wellbeing' and others that are referenced in our What difference does dance make?…”

“…There is evidence of growing recognition of the role of qualitative research in evidence based evaluation (Lub, 2015, Rossi et al 2004, critiques of standard evidence based approaches in health and challenges to the hierarchical position of quantitative findings (Freshwater et al 2010), taking a more holistic approach to health (Roe and Lysaker, 2012), mixed methods in public health more generally (Kaur, 2016), mixed methods in dance and physical activity evaluations (Sebire et al 2016) and stake holder-researcher relations in public health (Dagenais et al 2015;Oliver et al 2013). We cannot attend to these debates in detail here but draw on them at times in our extrapolation of implications for dance in relation to PA, PH and sport.…”

Guidelines for Qualitative Research in Organization Studies: Controversy and Possibilities

“…In fact, recent literature on OMT has been increasingly raising the issue of the necessity of establishing standards for qualitative research, which inevitably takes us to a basic dilemma of qualitative methods and its quest for legitimacy within the institutional atmosphere, notably that of OMT, which has historically favored quantitative studies (ATKINSON, 2004;FRESHWATER et al, 2010). Although the favoring of quantitative studies in OMT cannot be denied, the author of this paper particularly agrees with the position held by Wolcott (2001) who asserts that pitting qualitative and quantitative methods in opposition does a great disservice to both approaches, for it detracts from the contribution to be made by both.…”