The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ethical Components of Researcher—Researched Relationships in Qualitative Interviewing
Abstract
Qualitative interviews are widely and often uncritically adopted for health care research, with little justification of therapeutic value. Although they might provide valuable insights into the perspectives of participants, they represent only a version of reality, rather than “truth” per se . Qualitative research is vulnerable to bias through the attitudes and qualities of the researcher, social desirability factors, and conditions of worth. Exploitation, through role confusion, therapeutic misconception, and misrepresentation are particular risks for health care—related research. Ethical codes, biomedical principles and care philosophies provide little contextual guidance on the moral dilemmas encountered in the practice of research. If nurse researchers are to navigate the moral complexities of research relationships, then sensitivity to risk to participants must be of continual concern, from conception of the study to the reporting of outcomes. Examination of the self through critical reflection and supervision are therefore necessary components of ethical research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x · Cited by 2,311
“Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity
Finlay, L. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973202129120052 · Cited by 1,937
Coffey, A. (1999) · doi:10.4135/9780857020048 · Cited by 928
Methodological issues in grounded theory
Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01430.x · Cited by 642 · cited 2×
“Follow-up interviews have also been advocated as a mechanism for checking the authenticity of emerging insights identified by researchers, to ensure that these have meaning for participants (Cutcliffe, 2000).”
Background
Cited by
Conducting in-depth interviews with and without voice recorders: a comparative analysis
Rutakumwa, R., Mugisha, J. O., Bernays, S., Kabunga, E., Tumwekwase, G., Mbonye, M., & Seeley, J. (2020) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794119884806 · Cited by 378
Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: A Critical Literature Review
Taquette, S. R., & Borges da Matta Souza, L. M. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221078731 · Cited by 173
Silverio, S. A., Sheen, K. S., Bramante, A., Knighting, K., Koops, T. U., Montgomery, E., November, L., Soulsby, L. K., Stevenson, J. H., Watkins, M., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221124739 · Cited by 140
Ethics in evaluating a sociotechnical intervention with socially isolated older adults
Waycott, J., Morgans, A., Pedell, S., Ozanne, E., Vetere, F., Kulik, L., & Davis, H. (2015) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732315570136 · Cited by 40
Negotiating the Insider/Outsider Researcher Position within Qualitative Disability Studies Research
Mohler, E., & Rudman, D. (2022) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5047 · Cited by 22
Towards marketing biomethane in France—French consumers’ perception of biomethane
Herbes, C., Chouvellon, S., & Lacombe, J. (2018) · Energy, Sustainability and Society · doi:10.1186/s13705-018-0179-7 · Cited by 20
Shamim, M. S., Torda, A., Baig, L. A., Zubairi, N., & Balasooriya, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02425-6 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Hewitt, J.
- Venue
- Qualitative Health Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1149-1159
- ISSN
- 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7557
- OpenAlex
- W2113438815
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 39.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
