Methodolatry and Qualitative Health Research
Abstract
The increasing turn to qualitative research in health psychology raises a number of issues about the appropriate use and relevance of qualitative methods in this field. In this article I raise concerns about methodolatry: the privileging of methodological concerns over other considerations in qualitative health research. I argue that qualitative researchers are in danger of reifying methods in the same way as their colleagues in quantitative research have done for some time. Reasons for the pre-eminence of methods are discussed briefly and their consequences considered. The latter include: a concern with 'proper' or 'correct' methods; a focus on description at the expense of interpretation; a concern with issues of validity and generalizability; an avoidance of theory; an avoidance of the critical; and the stance of the researcher. I offer some suggestions for avoiding methodolatry and some opinions on how we might develop and use qualitative research more effectively in health psychology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,636 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019) · Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health · doi:10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806 · Cited by 19,677 · see citing works
“…be inferred that our concerns about how TA is being implemented in the fi eld of sport and exercise research indicate we ’ re succumbing to methodolatry (Chamberlain 2000) or proceduralism (King and Brooks 2017a), that we ’ re treating the method like a baking recipe that must be followed precisely…”
BackgroundMethodSample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732315617444 · Cited by 12,703 · see citing works
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 · Cited by 9,727 · see citing works
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023) · International Journal of Transgender Health · doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597 · Cited by 2,878 · see citing works
Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis
Malterud, K. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/1403494812465030 · Cited by 2,305 · see citing works
Special Invited Paper: Continuities, Contradictions, and Critical Inquiry in Grounded Theory
Charmaz, K. (2017) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406917719350 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Hughes-Morley, A., Young, B., Waheed, W., Small, N., & Bower, P. (2015) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.005 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Feminist qualitative methods and methodologies in psychology: A review and reflection
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2019) · Psychology of Women and Equalities Section Review · doi:10.53841/bpspowe.2019.2.1.13 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Cena, E., Brooks, J., Day, W., Goodman, S., Rousaki, A., Ruby-Granger, V., & Seymour-Smith, S. (2024) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069241282843 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“…should not be done in a rigid way of adhering to fi xed methods or fall into the trap of ‘ methodolatry ’ , a pervasive preoccupation with methodological concerns at the expense of other considerations (Chamberlain, 2000) that can lead to losing creativity and substance (Holloway & Todres, 2003).”
- Authors
- Chamberlain, K.
- Affiliations
- Massey University (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Chamberlain, Kerry
- ORCID
- Chamberlain, Kerry
- Venue
- Journal of Health Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 285-296
- ISSN
- 1359-1053 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7277
- OpenAlex
- W2149285103
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 17.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative research in health
- Keywords
- qualitative health research, health psychology, theory in qualitative research, critical 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
