Cited by 113Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

May I See Your Warrant, Please?: Justifying Outcomes in Qualitative Research

EDGE, J., RICHARDS, K.·1998·Applied Linguistics

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

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/19.3.334

Cites

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?

  • 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

Authors
EDGE, J., & RICHARDS, K.
Affiliations
Aston University (GB)
Venue
Applied Linguistics
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