CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Celebrations amongst challenges: Considering the past, present and future of the qualitative methods in psychology section of the British Psychology Society

Open access
Riley, Sarah, Brooks, Joanna, Goodman, Simon, Cahill, Sharon, Branney, Peter, Treharne, Gareth J., Sullivan, Cath·2019·Qualitative Research in Psychology
DOI 10.1080/14780887.2019.1605275

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

British Psychological Society regarding the current position of qualitative research in psychology in the UK. The article is in three parts. Part one documents the historical development of the section, outlining its rationale, remit and current activities. These activities aim to champion and develop qualitative methods in psychology, supporting high quality work regardless of epistemological or ontological position. Part two considers the current context of our work, describing how qualitative methods are valued in the UK, but also how this recognition is undermined, particularly through the operationalisation of our national research assessment (the Research Excellence Framework). We also consider the challenges that Open Science poses for qualitive researchers. Part three highlights some of the significant contributions UK-based qualitative researchers have made to psychology, with a particular focus on feminist-informed research, discourse analysis, and interpretative phenomenological analysis; before pointing to future exciting possibilities based on research exploring the affordances of digital technologies and innovative synthesising across epistemologies and disciplinary boundaries.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14780887.2019.1605275

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A strict emphasis on checklists restrains the diversity and multiplicity of practices within qualitative research, reducing it to a set of technical procedures.

    “They contend that a strict emphasis on checklists restrains the diversity and multiplicity of practices within qualitative research, reducing it to a set of technical procedures (Barbour, 2001; Riley et al., 2019).”

    From Quality Criteria: General and Specific Guidelines for Qualitative Approaches in Psychology Research. A Concise Guide for Novice Researchers and Reviewers (2024) · cites this paper as Riley et al., 2019

    Section 2 (p. 8) criticizes applying narrow, post-positivist quality checklists across the broad spectrum of qualitative methods, supporting the claim that strict checklists can constrain diverse practices. The paper does not go so far as to say that this reduces qualitative research to a set of technical procedures. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Ashworth P, 2008, Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to methods
  2. Black, S & Riley, S, 2018, QMiP Bulletin, 25
  3. British Psychological Society n.d.-a, 2018, viewed, 11
  4. British Psychological Society n.d.-b, 2018, viewed, 11
  5. Society British Psychological, 2016, Standards for the accreditation of undergraduate, conversion and integrated masters programmes in psychology
  6. Branney P, 2014, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70, 10.1111/jan.12363 · DOI
  7. Brooks J, 2018, QMiP Bulletin, 25
  8. Brooks J, 2018, Writing for the research excellence framework 2021: guidance for qualitative psychologists
  9. Brooks, J & King, N, 2017, (eds.), Applied qualitative research in psychology, 10.1057/978-1-137-35913-1 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7_3 · DOI
  11. Coma and disorders, 2018, of consciousness research centre
  12. 10.1111/bjd.15402 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/03075079.2016.1276549 · DOI
  14. 10.1136/bmj.a1655 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1080/19419899.2011.589866 · DOI
  16. Economic & Social Science Research Council, 2013, ESRC open access to research outputs
  17. Economic and Social Research Council, 2018, ESRC research data policy
  18. Finfgeld-Connett D, 2016, Qualitative Health Research, 26, 10.1177/1049732315616628 · DOI
  19. Gibson S, 2013, British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.x · DOI
  20. Gibson, S & Sullivan, C, 2018, Qualitative Psychology, 5
  21. Gill R, 2007, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10, 10.1177/1367549407075898 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Gill R, 2017, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 20, 10.1177/1367549417733003 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Gill, R & Orgad, S, 2018, Sociological Research Online, 28
  24. 10.1002/casp.2302 · DOI
  25. Gough B, 2002, Developing guidelines for the supervision of undergraduate qualitative research in psychology
  26. 10.1037/hea0000206 · DOI
  27. Greenhalgh T, 2016, BMJ, 352, i563, 10.1136/bmj.i563 · DOI
  28. Greenhalgh, T & Fahy, N, 2015, BMC Medicine, 13
  29. Henriques J, 1984, Changing the subject: psychology, social regulation and subjectivity
  30. Hunter JE, 2001, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 10.1086/321953 · DOI
  31. Kahneman D, 2012, A proposal to deal with questions about
  32. Kitzinger, J & Kitzinger, C, 2018, Palliative Medicine, 32
  33. Langdridge D, 2007, research and method
  34. Levelt WJ, 2012, Flawed science: the fraudulent research practices of social psychologist
  35. Macleod C, 2014, Feminism & Psychology, 24, 10.1177/0959353513515308 · DOI
  36. Macleod C, 2018, The Palgrave handbook of ethics in critical research, 10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7 · DOI
  37. Madill A, 2015, The Psychologist, 28
  38. Madill, A & Todd, KZ, 2002, Proposal to the council of the British Psychological Society for the formation of a new
  39. 10.1177/1745691612460688 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1098/rsos.150547 · DOI
  41. Murphy T, 2017, Perspectives, Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 21, 10.1080/13603108.2016.1246386 · DOI
  42. Neuroskeptic, 2012, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 10.1177/1745691612459519 · DOI
  43. Parker I, 1992, Discourse dynamics: critical analysis for social and individual psychology
  44. Pashler, H & Wagenmakers, EJ, 2012, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7
  45. Potter, J & Wetherell, M, 1987, Discourse analysis: beyond attitudes and behaviour
  46. 10.1186/1745-6215-14-54 · DOI
  47. Rice C, 2015, Disability and Society, 30, 10.1080/09687599.2015.1037950 · DOI
  48. Research Excellence Framework, 2017, viewed, 11
  49. Riley S, 2016, QMiP Bulletin, 21
  50. 10.1111/spc3.12367 · DOI
  51. Saunders B, 2015, Qualitative Research, 15, 10.1177/1468794114550439 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Seymour-Smith S, 2013, Health Psychology, 32, 10.1037/a0029507 · DOI
  53. Seymour-Smith S, 2016, Psycho-Oncology, 25, 10.1002/pon.4219 · DOI
  54. Shaw R, 2001, Health Psychology Update, 10, 10.53841/bpshpu.2001.10.4.48 · DOI
  55. Smith, J (ed, 2015, Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to methods
  56. 10.1037/13620-005 · DOI
  57. Statement of retraction, 2014, Racial Studies, 37
  58. Sullivan, C & Forrester, M (eds, 2018, Doing qualitative research in psychology: a practical guide
  59. 10.4135/9781473914209 · DOI
  60. Wiggins S, 2015, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13, 10.1080/14780887.2015.1075641 · DOI
  61. Willig C, 2016, QMiP Bulletin, 21
  62. Willig C, 2017, Advancing dual focus methodology, 5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Riley, S., Brooks, J., Goodman, S., Cahill, S., Branney, P., Treharne, G. J., & Sullivan, C.
Affiliations
  • Aberystwyth University (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • University of East London (GB)
  • University of Bradford (GB)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • University of Lancashire (GB)
Corresponding author
Riley, Sarah
ORCID
Venue
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-05-22
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
464-482
ISSN
  • 1478-0887 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-0895
DOI
10.1080/14780887.2019.1605275
OpenAlex
W2944998877
Cited by
31
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
FWCI
12.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Qualitative Research in Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
British Psychological Society, Research Excellence Framework, research evaluation, open science, feminist research, discourse analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, digital technologies in research, epistemological pluralism

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