The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Qualitative Research: Valuable or Irrelevant?
Abstract
This paper evaluates qualitative research methods in relation to the emancipatory research model. It identifies the main reasons why researchers opt for qualitative research, describes the principal data collection techniques used by them, and discusses some of the problems associated with these procedures. Drawing on insights gained from doing qualitative research in day centres for disabled young adults, I argue that these methodologies are fundamental to the emancipatory research paradigm; but their relevance can only be determined by researchers' willingness to challenge the institutions which control disability research production.
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
Oliver, M. (1990) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1 · Cited by 4,227
Cited by
Parasites, Pawns and Partners: Disability Research and the Role of Non-Disabled Researchers
Stone, E., & Priestley, M. (1996) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/591081 · Cited by 438
What a Difference a Decade Makes: Reflections on doing ‘emancipatory’ disability research
BARNES, C. (2003) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/713662197 · Cited by 406
Self-citationCridland, E. K., Jones, S. C., Caputi, P., & Magee, C. A. (2015) · Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability · doi:10.3109/13668250.2014.964191 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Barnes, C.
- Venue
- Disability, Handicap & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 115-124
- ISSN
- 0267-4645 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050006762
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.19
- 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: Qualitative Research: Valuable or Irrelevant? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02674649266780151
- The paper
- Barnes, C. (1992). Qualitative Research: Valuable or Irrelevant? Disability, Handicap & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674649266780151
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.
