The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: Whose Criteria and Whose Research?
Abstract
This paper examines various criteria that have been proposed for evaluating the increasing number of empirical studies carried out using qualitative research methods, and it demonstrates how such criteria may privilege certain forms of qualitative research while excluding others. A broader disciplinary view is taken by defining qualitative research, and by discussing in more detail the two qualitative traditions that have achieved prominence in applied linguistics, ethnography, and conversation analysis. Then, select existing evaluative criteria for qualitative research proposed by applied linguists, as well as additional criteria developed outside applied linguistics, are examined. Finally, the issue of criteriology is considered, on which some of the assumptions underlying the existing evaluative criteria are based. To conclude, this article discusses the complex relationship between research method and evaluative criteria and the role of professional journals in establishing and validating such criteria.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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 Lazaraton, 2003
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Quality in Qualitative Research
Seale, C. (1999) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/107780049900500402 · Cited by 1,743
Cited by
Mixed methods research: toward new research designs in applied linguistics
Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x · Cited by 183
Riazi, A. M., Rezvani, R., & Ghanbar, H. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100065 · Cited by 79
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Lazaraton, A.
- Corresponding author
- Lazaraton, Anne
- Venue
- The Modern Language Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-02-12
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4781
- OpenAlex
- W2149918815
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 36.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- qualitative research evaluation, evaluation criteria, criteriology, ethnography, conversation analysis, qualitative research traditions, research methodology, professional journals, applied linguistics
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: Whose Criteria and Whose Research? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1540-4781.00175
- The paper
- Lazaraton, A. (2003). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: Whose Criteria and Whose Research? The Modern Language Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00175
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.