Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: A pan-paradigmatic perspective
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Sample size in qualitative research
Sandelowski, M. (1995) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.4770180211 · Cited by 4,372 · see citing works
Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.
Morrow, S. L. (2005) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250 · Cited by 3,199 · see citing works
Self-citationWolf, M. M. (1978) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203 · Cited by 3,176 · see citing works
A Guide to Conducting Consensual Qualitative Research
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000097254001 · Cited by 2,884 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The pursuit of quality in grounded theory
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357 · Cited by 1,221 · see citing works
“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.”
BackgroundLevitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017) · Qualitative Psychology · doi:10.1037/qup0000082 · Cited by 851 · see citing works
Self-citationMiller, R. A. (2017) · Journal of College Student Development · doi:10.1353/csd.2017.0040 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Artom, M., Czuber-Dochan, W., Sturt, J., Proudfoot, H., Roberts, D., & Norton, C. (2019) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-019-0538-y · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Williams, E. N., & Morrow, S. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Utah (US)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Elizabeth Nutt
- Venue
- Psychotherapy Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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