Cited by 249Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

The issue of quality in qualitative research

Hammersley, Martyn·2007·International Journal of Research & Method in Education

Abstract

This article addresses the perennial issue of the criteria by which qualitative research should be evaluated. At the present time, there is a sharp conflict between demands for explicit criteria, for example in order to serve systematic reviewing and evidence‐based practice, and arguments on the part of some qualitative researchers that such criteria are neither necessary nor desirable. At issue here, in part, is what the term ‘criterion’ means, and what role criteria could play in the context of qualitative enquiry. Equally important, though, is the question of whether a single set of criteria is possible across qualitative research, given the fundamental areas of disagreement within it. These reflect divergent paradigms framed by value assumptions about what is and is not worth investigation. In addition, there are differences in methodological orientation: over what counts as rigorous enquiry, realism versus constructionism, and whether the goal of research is to produce knowledge or to serve other goals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437270701614782

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • The prevailing view held by qualitative scholars from a social constructivist standpoint, that the idea of foundational criteria against which the quality of qualitative research can be judged is flawed.

    “Yet, the prevailing view held by qualitative scholars from a social constructivist standpoint (Kress, 2011), that we would align ourselves with, is that the idea of foundational criteria (i.e., fixed and universal) against which the quality of qualitative research can be judged is flawed (Barbour, 2001; Hammersley, 2007; Lazaraton, 2003; Richards, 2009; Shohamy, 2004; Tracy, 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hammersley, M.
Affiliations
The Open University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hammersley, Martyn
Venue
International Journal of Research & Method in Education
Published
2007-11
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
287-305
ISSN
  • 1743-727X (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7288
OpenAlex
W1989138798
Cited by
249
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 6
FWCI
14.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Research & Method in Education (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
qualitative research quality, evaluation criteria, systematic reviews, evidence-based practice, research paradigms, value assumptions, research rigor

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