Cited by 151Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsEducational Research and Methods

The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review.

Levitt, Heidi M., Morrill, Zenobia, Collins, Kathleen M., Rizo, Javier L.·2021·Journal of Counseling Psychology

Abstract

This article articulates principles and practices that support methodological integrity in relation to critical qualitative research. We begin by describing 2 changes that have occurred in psychological methods over the last 15 years. (a) Building on foundational work advocating for epistemological pluralism, guidelines on how to design, review, and report qualitative and mixed methods have been advanced to support methodological integrity in keeping with a diversity of researchers' aims and approaches. (b) There has been an increased use of critical epistemological perspectives and critical methods. In light of these changes, the current article puts forward principles to support critical qualitative researchers when considering methodological rigor and when formulating rationales to support their methods in the journal article review process. Illustrating the principles with an example of critical research, the article describes common problems and issues in the research design process that can be considered in order to strengthen the returns of critical studies. Recommendations are made for editors and reviewers on how to conduct reviews of critical qualitative research, and pressing concerns for publishing critical qualitative research are detailed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/cou0000523

Cites

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?

  • Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research.

    “Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021;McGinley et al., 2021).”

    From Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as Levitt et al., 2021

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
Venue
Journal of Counseling Psychology
Published
2021-04
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
357-370
ISSN
  • 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2168
OpenAlex
W3164303525
Cited by
151
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8
FWCI
30.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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
critical qualitative research, methodological integrity, research design, peer review, epistemological pluralism, critical epistemology, critical method, methodological quality, mixed methods
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, Research Personnel, Review Literature as Topic, Qualitative 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