The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity
Abstract
Reconceptualising rigour: the case for reflexivity This paper is a critical review of recent discussions of rigour in nursing research. We will argue that ‘borrowing’ evaluation criteria from one paradigm of inquiry and applying them to another is problematic. We attempt to map the ‘rigour’ field and add a dimension to the existing debate about rigour and qualitative research through inclusion of reflexivity guided by philosophical hermeneutics. We describe reflexivity and appeal to writers to incorporate a reflexive account into their research product by signposting to readers ‘what is going on’ while researching. We contend that researchers bring to the research product, data generated, a range of literature, a positioning of this literature, a positioning of oneself, and moral socio‐political contexts. We suggest that reflexive research is characterized by ongoing self‐critique and self‐appraisal and that the research product can be given shape by the politics of location and positioning. We emphasize that in the creation of a text (the research product) it is desirable that the researcher be a skilled writer. Finally we claim that if the research product is well signposted, the readers will be able to travel easily through the worlds of the participants and makers of the text (the researchers) and decide for themselves whether the text is believable or plausible (our terms for rigour).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
The problem of rigor in qualitative research
Sandelowski, M. (1986) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005 · Cited by 2,772 · cited 1×
“Sandelowski (1986) brought these evaluation criteria to the attention of nurse researchers, and since that time, most of the discussion surrounding rigour in qualitative work has incorporated Sandelowski's in¯uence.”
BackgroundPhenomenology and Psychological Research
Giorgi, A., & Aanstoos, C. M. (1991) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,204
(1994) · Cited by 1,053
Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective
Munhall, P. L. (1986) · Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) · Cited by 990
Fertile Obsession: Validity After Poststructuralism
Lather, P. (1993) · The Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00112.x · Cited by 937 · cited 2×
“Our interpretation is that this refers to re¯ection about what is going on while using methods, in other words, `a re¯exive exploration of our own practices of representation' (Lather 1993 p. 675).”
BackgroundMethodHermeneutics, Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer
Welch, L., & Palmer, R. E. (1971) · The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · doi:10.2307/429547 · Cited by 531
Interpretive social science : a second look
Rabinow, P., & Sullivan, W. M. (1987) · Cited by 527
Hall, J. M., & Stevens, P. E. (1991) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-199103000-00005 · Cited by 386
Qualitative Research: The Evaluation of Its Credibility, Fittingness, and Auditability
Beck, C. T. (1993) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/019394599301500212 · Cited by 382
Cited by
Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244014522633 · Cited by 4,395
Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research
Berger, R. (2015) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794112468475 · Cited by 4,031
“Reflexivity has been increasingly recognized as a crucial strategy in the process of generating knowledge by means of qualitative research (Ahmed Dunya et al., 2011; Blaxter et al., 2006; D’Cruz et al., 2007; Gerstl-Pepin and Patrizion, 2009; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2002; Horsburgh, 2003; Koch and Harrington, 1998).”
BackgroundEthics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800403262360 · Cited by 2,671
A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149.
Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2023) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2022.2057287 · Cited by 2,014
“…influence on their research enables researchers to enhance the confirmability (the degree to which the results could be confirmed by other researchers) and transferability (the degree to which the results can be applied to other settings) of the findings (Koch and Harrington 1998; Malterud 2001).”
BackgroundResult‘Clear as Mud’: Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690300200201 · Cited by 1,256
Metadata
- Authors
- Koch, T., & Harrington, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 882-890
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2120988635
- Cited by
- 616
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 37.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00725.x
- The paper
- Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00725.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.