CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,199Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsEducational Research and Methods

Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.

Morrow, Susan L.·2005·Journal of Counseling Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article examines concepts of the trustworthiness, or credibility, of qualitative research. Following a “researcher-as-instrument,” or self-reflective, statement, the paradigmatic underpinnings of various criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research are explored, setting the stage for a discussion of more transcendent standards (those not associated with specific paradigms) for conducting quality research: social validity, subjectivity and reflexivity, adequacy of data, and adequacy of interpretation. Finally, current guidelines for writing and publishing qualitative research are reviewed, and strategies for conducting and writing qualitative research reports are suggested. Qualitative research, ensuing from a variety of disciplines, paradigms, and epistemologies, embraces multiple standards of quality, known variously as validity, credibility, rigor ,o rtrustworthiness. In addition to some standards that may be thought of as somewhat universal across disciplines and paradigms, the “goodness” (Morrow & Smith, 2000) of qualitative inquiry is assessed on the basis of the paradigmatic underpinnings of the research and the standards of the discipline. Thus, a grounded theory study or a consensual qualitative research investigation in counseling psychology that is rooted in a postpositivist or constructivist/interpretivist paradigm will look quite different from a critical ethnography in education; and the standards appropriate for evaluating these studies will vary accordingly. I begin this article by addressing the paradigmatic underpinnings of trustworthiness or rigor in qualitative research. Next, I discuss central topics related to trustworthiness or validity that span paradigms and may be thought of as relevant across most research designs. I then provide an overview of guidelines that have been suggested for evaluating qualitative research, particularly in psychology. Finally, I offer recommendations for enhancing the quality of qualitative research in counseling psychology and suggest strategies for writing and publishing. First, however, in keeping with the standard of reflexivity as a way for researchers to inform their audiences about their perspectives as well as to manage their subjectivities, I describe my own assumptions about qualitative research methodology and quality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Grounded theorists are building the kind of trustworthiness that Morrow (2005) and Williams and Morrow (2009) argue is imperative to achieve in research practice.

    “In short, grounded theorists are building the kind of 'trustworthiness,' of their research that counseling psychologists Morrow (2005) and Williams and Morrow (2009) rightly argue is imperative to achieve in research practice.”

    From The pursuit of quality in grounded theory (2021) · cites this paper as Morrow (2005)

  • The authors strived to minimize researcher bias while recognising that the analysis is a co-construction of the participants' reality.

    “While recognising that the analysis is a co-construction of the participants' reality, we strived to minimize researcher bias [47].”

    From Helpful and hindering factors for remission in dysthymia and panic disorder at 9-year follow-up: A mixed methods study (2008) · cites this paper as [47]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Morrow, S. L.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Morrow, Susan L.
ORCID
Morrow, Susan L.
Venue
Journal of Counseling Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2005-04
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
250-260
ISSN
  • 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2168
DOI
10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
OpenAlex
W2017532745
Cited by
3,199
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 142 · 2025: 203 · 2024: 205 · 2023: 197 · 2022: 199 · 2021: 255 · 2020: 226 · 2019: 192 · 2018: 227 · 2017: 189 · 2016: 192 · 2015: 193 · 2014: 178 · 2013: 150 · 2012: 109
FWCI
162.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
trustworthiness, credibility, qualitative research quality, research paradigms, reflexivity, subjectivity, social validity, qualitative research reporting, constructivist approach, interpretivism, counseling psychology research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review