Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity.

Abstract

The current paper presents recommendations from the Task Force on Resources for the Publication of Qualitative Research of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology, a section of Division 5 of the American Psychological Association. This initiative was a response to concerns by authors that reviews of qualitative research articles frequently utilize inflexible sets of procedures and provide contradictory feedback when evaluating acceptability. In response, the Task Force proposes the concept of methodological integrity and recommends its evaluation via its two composite processes: (a) fidelity to the subject matter, which is the process by which researchers develop and maintain allegiance to the phenomenon under study as it is conceived within their tradition of inquiry, and (b) utility in achieving research goals, which is the process by which researchers select procedures to generate insightful findings that usefully answer their research questions. Questions that guide the evaluation of these processes, example principles, and a flowchart are provided to help authors and reviewers in the process of both research design and review. The consideration of methodological integrity examines whether the implementation of fidelity and utility function coherently together. Researchers and reviewers also examine whether methods further the research goals, are consistent with researchers' approaches to inquiry, and are tailored to the characteristics of the subject matter and investigators. This approach to evaluation encourages researchers and reviewers to shift from using standardized and decontextualized procedures as criteria for rigor toward assessing the underlying methodological bases for trustworthiness as they function within research projects.

Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report.

“…Seeing the pattern can shift the way the whole is understood just as seeing a pattern in the context of the whole phenomenon can shift the way it is understood. In this way, a number of writers have theorized that this hermeneutic circle is a fundamental core process within qualitative inquiry (see Levitt, Motulsky, Wertz, Morrow & Ponterotto, 2017;Osbeck, 2014;Rennie, 2012;Wertz et al, 2011). This process is selfcorrecting; as new data are analyzed their analysis corrects and refines the existing findings.…”

“…Similarly, the demonstration of analyses tends to convey transparently the ways that interpretations were shaped or observations were formed. Across approaches to inquiry, qualitative researchers embrace a reporting standard of transparency as it enhances the methodological integrity (Levitt et al, 2017;Rennie, 1995). When researchers openly describe the ways their perspectives guided their research (e.g., in critical methods) this transparency provides the reader with information that permits an understanding of their goals and increases the trustworthiness of the researchers' reports.…”

“…Without the guidance of reporting standards, qualitative researchers, reviewers, and editors have faced numerous complications (e.g., Levitt et al, 2017). Authors have suffered from conflicting manuscript expectations in the style or content of reporting.…”

“…Prior to this meeting, the members reviewed readings on qualitative methods reporting (e.g., Madill & Gough, 2008;Neale, 2015;O'Brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed & Cook, 2014;Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007;Tong, Flemming, McInnes, Oliver, & Craig, 2012;Walsh, 2015;Wisdom, Cavalier, Onwuegbuzie & Green, 2012;Wong, Greenhalgh, Westhorp, Buckingham & Pawson, 2013), a task force report to the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology, a section of APA Division 5, on the recommendations regarding publishing and reviewing of qualitative research (Levitt et al, 2017), and the initial quantitative APA journal article reporting standards (APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008). The work of these leaders in qualitative methods provided valuable suggestions for us to consider in the formation of our standards.…”

Clients’ Experiences With Internet-Based Psychological Treatments for Mental Disorders: Protocol for a Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies (Preprint)

“…Finally, the results are abstracted in different forms, such as figures or narratives to better grasp the phenomena. Following the recommendations by Levitt, Motulosky, Wertz, Morrow and Ponterotto [30], methodological integrity (in terms of fidelity and utility) will be pursued. Thus, the different considerations at both the data collection and data analysis levels will be fulfilled.…”