Cited by 3,074Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsSport Psychology and PerformanceQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology

Open access
Smith, Brett, McGannon, Kerry R.·2018·International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology

Abstract

Qualitative research has grown within sport and exercise psychology and is now widely conducted. The purpose of this review is to discuss three commonly used ways to demonstrate rigor when conducting or judging qualitative research in sport and exercise psychology. These are the method of member checking, the method of inter-rater reliability, and the notion of universal criteria. Problems with each method are first highlighted. Member checking and inter-rater reliability are shown to be ineffective for verification, trustworthiness, or reliability purposes. Next, universal criteria within the context of Tracy’s, heavily drawn on paper within sport and exercise psychology is problematized. Throughout the discussion of each method and universal criteria more suitable possibilities for conducting rigorous qualitative research are offered. The paper concludes that to support high-quality qualitative research, scholars – including journal editors and reviewers – need to change how rigor is developed and judged, rather than perpetuate the problems with how it has been commonly evaluated in the past. Recommendations for developing rigor when conducting and/or judging qualitative research within sport and exercise psychology are also offered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Member checking in theory controls for or corrects subjective bias-misinterpretation or misemphasis-of the researcher.

    “This practice in theory controls for or corrects any subjective bias-misinterpretation, misemphasis-of the researcher (Smith & McGannon, 2018).”
  • The use of member checking is infused with assumptions about reality and knowledge production that sit uncomfortably with reflexive TA, including that there is a truth of participants' experiences accessible if researcher influence is checked.

    “However, the use of member checking is infused with assumptions about reality and knowledge production that sit (conceptually) uncomfortably with reflexive TA-including that there is a truth of participants' experiences that we can access if we can keep the potentially distorting effects of researcher influence in check (see Smith & McGannon, 2018).”
  • Qualitative methodologists have already presented thoughtful considerations of what is assumed and at stake in various supposedly universal criteria.

    “Luckily, qualitative methodologists have already done a lot of the heavy lifting here (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2021b;Smith & McGannon, 2018;Varpio et al., 2017Varpio et al., , 2021)), presenting thoughtful considerations of what's assumed and at stake in various supposedly universal criteria.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Laurentian University (CA)
Corresponding author
Smith, Brett
Venue
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Published
2017-05-14
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
101-121
ISSN
  • 1750-984X (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-9858
OpenAlex
W2615715350
Cited by
3,074
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 358 · 2025: 418 · 2024: 394 · 2023: 395 · 2022: 365 · 2021: 396 · 2020: 299 · 2019: 227 · 2018: 161 · 2017: 61
FWCI
728.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
qualitative research rigor, member checking, inter-rater reliability, trustworthiness, research evaluation, peer review, editorial practice, sport and exercise psychology

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