May I See Your Warrant, Please?: Justifying Outcomes in Qualitative Research
Abstract
Despite both resistance from the dominant orthodoxy and complications caused by the competing claims of new paradigm diversity, there is a pressing need for TESOL researchers to engage productively with the richness of intellectual opportunity currently available in the human sciences There are three possible avenues of growth to extend conventional research parameters, to align one's work with a recognized radical alternative, to develop an individual stance Any effective response must address questions of position (the research tradition in terms of which one wishes to be evaluated), voice (in terms of who is given space to speak) and representation (the form of discourse chosen) Taken together, these form the basis of legitimization (in terms of disputable argument) and authentication (in terms of contextualized credibility) They are, therefore, fundamental to the provision of adequate warrant for the research in which TESOL needs to be involved This question of what constitutes a warrant is the central issue
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?
Trustworthiness is the next theme in the authors' findings.
“Trustworthiness, as conceptualised by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and discussed in the context of applied linguistics by Edge and Richards (1998), is the next theme in our findings.”
From How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies? (2025) · cites this paper as Edge and Richards (1998)
The conception of corroboration reflected in the examined research articles hardly resembles the way Edge and Richards (1998) conceptualise it.
“The conception of corroboration reflected in the examined research articles hardly resembles the way Edge and Richards (1998) conceptualise it.”
From How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies? (2025) · cites this paper as Edge and Richards (1998)
There are only two cases in the examined articles in which the meaning of corroboration is similar to that of Edge and Richards (1998).
“There are only two cases in which the meaning of corroboration is similar to that of Edge and Richards (1998).”
From How do language education researchers attend to quality in qualitative studies? (2025) · cites this paper as Edge and Richards (1998)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Quantitative Research Methods, Study Quality, and Outcomes: The Case of Interaction Research
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x · Cited by 267 · 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
- EDGE, J., & RICHARDS, K.
- Affiliations
- Aston University (GB)
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-09-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 334-356
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2063673821
- Cited by
- 113
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 14.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (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
- warrants, qualitative research, research legitimacy, research credibility, researcher positionality
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