Cited by 2,311Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research

Fossey, Ellie, Harvey, Carol, Mcdermott, Fiona, Davidson, Larry·2002·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Qualitative research aims to address questions concerned with developing an understanding of the meaning and experience dimensions of humans' lives and social worlds. Central to good qualitative research is whether the research participants' subjective meanings, actions and social contexts, as understood by them, are illuminated. This paper aims to provide beginning researchers, and those unfamiliar with qualitative research, with an orientation to the principles that inform the evaluation of the design, conduct, findings and interpretation of qualitative research. It orients the reader to two philosophical perspectives, the interpretive and critical research paradigms, which underpin both the qualitative research methodologies most often used in mental health research, and how qualitative research is evaluated. Criteria for evaluating quality are interconnected with standards for ethics in qualitative research. They include principles for good practice in the conduct of qualitative research, and for trustworthiness in the interpretation of qualitative data. The paper reviews these criteria, and discusses how they may be used to evaluate qualitative research presented in research reports. These principles also offer some guidance about the conduct of sound qualitative research for the beginner qualitative researcher.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • It is a delicate balancing act to enable participants' accounts to retain a degree of visibility in the text so that the reader can make connections between analytical findings and the data from which they were derived.

    “It is a delicate balancing act, enabling participants' accounts to retain a degree of visibility in the text so that the reader can make the connections between analytical findings and the data from which they were derived (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson, 2002; Jones, 2002).”

    From The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory (2006) · cites this paper as Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson, 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., & Davidson, L.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Fossey, Ellie
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2002-12
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
717-732
ISSN
  • 0004-8674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1614
OpenAlex
W2092473556
Cited by
2,311
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 105 · 2025: 150 · 2024: 186 · 2023: 199 · 2022: 113 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 122 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 107 · 2016: 121 · 2015: 150 · 2014: 144 · 2013: 125 · 2012: 111
FWCI
84.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (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 › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
qualitative research evaluation, research quality criteria, interpretivism, critical paradigm, research ethics, trustworthiness, qualitative data interpretation, mental health research
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychiatry, Research, Comprehension, 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