Cited by 411Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsData Analysis and Archiving

Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: A pan-paradigmatic perspective

Williams, Elizabeth Nutt, Morrow, Susan L.·2009·Psychotherapy Research

Abstract

In this article, as two researchers from different traditions in qualitative research (consensual qualitative research and grounded theory), the authors present their shared views on the critical elements of trustworthiness in qualitative data. In addition to making specific recommendations about the integrity of data, the balance between participant meaning and researcher interpretation, and clear communication and application of the findings, they identify ways in which these issues are difficult to negotiate within and across different qualitative approaches. The authors present examples from various qualitative studies, emphasize the need for a shared language to reduce confusion between qualitative traditions and with researchers from a more strictly quantitative orientation, and recommend particular approaches to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10503300802702113

Cites

5 of 5 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 Williams and Morrow (2009)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, E. N., & Morrow, S. L.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, Elizabeth Nutt
Venue
Psychotherapy Research
Published
2009-07
Volume
19
Issue
4-5
Pages
576-582
ISSN
  • 1050-3307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4381
OpenAlex
W2033830045
Cited by
411
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 16
FWCI
42.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy Research (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 › Data Analysis and Archiving
Keywords
trustworthiness, qualitative research, consensual qualitative research, grounded theory, data integrity, research dissemination, qualitative research paradigms, shared language
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, 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