CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,028Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsInnovations in Medical EducationQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking

Open access
Varpio, Lara, Ajjawi, Rola, Monrouxe, Lynn V, O'Brien, Bridget C, Rees, Charlotte E·2017·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.13124
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context: Qualitative research is widely accepted as a legitimate approach to inquiry in health professions education ( HPE ). To secure this status, qualitative researchers have developed a variety of strategies (e.g. reliance on post‐positivist qualitative methodologies, use of different rhetorical techniques, etc.) to facilitate the acceptance of their research methodologies and methods by the HPE community. Although these strategies have supported the acceptance of qualitative research in HPE , they have also brought about some unintended consequences. One of these consequences is that some HPE scholars have begun to use terms in qualitative publications without critically reflecting on: (i) their ontological and epistemological roots; (ii) their definitions, or (iii) their implications. Objectives: In this paper, we share our critical reflections on four qualitative terms popularly used in the HPE literature: thematic emergence; triangulation; saturation, and member checking. Methods: We discuss the methodological origins of these terms and the applications supported by these origins. We reflect critically on how these four terms became expected of qualitative research in HPE , and we reconsider their meanings and use by drawing on the broader qualitative methodology literature. Conclusions: Through this examination, we hope to encourage qualitative scholars in HPE to avoid using qualitative terms uncritically and non‐reflexively.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.13124

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 64 references

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2015, Academic Medicine's Reviewer Guidebook: Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts
  2. Webb EJ, 1966, Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences
  3. Lincoln YS, 2011, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 191
  4. Guba E, 1990, The Paradigm Dialogue

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Varpio, L., Ajjawi, R., Monrouxe, L. V., O'Brien, B. C., & Rees, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
  • Department of Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Varpio, Lara
ORCID
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-12-16
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
40-50
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/medu.13124
OpenAlex
W2562778769
Semantic Scholar
f6cc49a0d5ae5b26dadfdbc5c52c7ebf8dea5908
Cited by
1,028
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 146 · 2025: 169 · 2024: 167 · 2023: 138 · 2022: 137 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 2
FWCI
152.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
qualitative research methodology, health professions education, triangulation, saturation, member checking, reflexivity, ontological and epistemological assumptions, research legitimacy
MeSH terms
Health Occupations, Humans, Research Design, Qualitative Research

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