The issue of quality in qualitative research
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
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?
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).”
From How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies? (2025) · cites this paper as Hammersley, 2007
Cites
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What is qualitative in qualitative research
Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7 · Cited by 1,280 · see citing works
Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research
Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review
Yadav, D. (2022) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Buus, N., & Perron, A. (2020) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103452 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies?
Mirhosseini, S.-A., & Pearson, W. S. (2025) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444824000053 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hammersley, M.
- Affiliations
- The Open University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hammersley, Martyn
- ORCID
- Hammersley, Martyn
- Venue
- International Journal of Research & Method in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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