Cited by 64Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Empirical verification of the “TACT” framework for teaching rigour in qualitative research methodology

Daniel, Ben Kei·2018·Qualitative Research Journal

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a framework intended to guide students and novice researchers in learning about the necessary dimensions for assessing the rigour of qualitative research studies. The framework has four dimensions – (T)rustworthiness, (A)uditability, (C)redibility and (T)ransferability. The development of TACT is informed by various discourses of rigour in the qualitative research methods literature. Results of an empirical verification of TACT suggests that postgraduate students and faculty learning qualitative research found the framework useful for learning rigour in qualitative research methods. TACT also serves as an important theoretical tool for setting directions for further discourses on teaching and learning critical aspects of rigour in qualitative research methodology. Design/methodology/approach The formal verification of the TACT started with a development of a rating tool. The tool consisted of a total of 16 items, 4 items per each dimension. The items were ranked on five-scale Likert points (1=very important, 2=important, 3=neutral, 4=less important, 5=not important). The instrument was piloted and tested for reliability revealing an overall Cronbach’s α (α=0.86), which indicates a good level of internal consistency (George and Mallery, 2003) among the dimensions. The tool was put online and sent out to participants enroled in workshops on “assessing rigour in qualitative research studies”. Findings Overall, participants found TA…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/qrj-d-17-00012

Cites

10 of 10 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 findings of this study reflect high transferability and auditability, as lessons learned can be useful in similar GSRSs contexts and can be successfully implemented into university lectures in the future.

    “The findings of this study also reflect high transferability and auditability (Daniel 2018), as the lessons learned from this work can be useful in similar GSRSs contexts (e.g.Socrative, Quizlet and Buzz!) and can be successfully implemented into university lectures in the future.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daniel, B. K.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Daniel, Ben Kei
Venue
Qualitative Research Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2018-03-28
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
262-275
ISSN
1443-9883 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794609325
Cited by
64
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Qualitative Research Journal (publishedVersion)
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
trustworthiness, auditability, credibility, transferability, graduate students, reflexivity, research quality

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