The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reading Qualitative Studies
Open accessAbstract
In this article, the authors hope to shift the debate in the practice disciplines concerning quality in qualitative research from a preoccupation with epistemic criteria toward consideration of aesthetic and rhetorical concerns. They see epistemic criteria as inevitably including aesthetic and rhetorical concerns. The authors argue here for a reconceptualization of the research report as a literary technology that mediates between researcher/writer and reviewer/reader. The evaluation of these reports should thus be treated as occasions in which readers seek to make texts meaningful, rather than for the rigid application of standards and criteria. The authors draw from reader-response theories, literature on rhetoric and representation in science, and findings from an on-going methodological research project involving the appraisal of a set of qualitative studies.
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
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
(1996) · Cited by 11,584
Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts
Latour, B. (1986) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 7,491
Handbook of qualitative research
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-0057 · Cited by 7,052
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215
Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986) · Cited by 6,157
(1986) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520946286 · Cited by 5,607
Richardson, L. (2004) · Turning Points in Qualitative Research · doi:10.5040/9798216417880.ch-17 · Cited by 4,225
Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities
Proffitt, E., & Fish, S. (1983) · Journal of Aesthetic Education · doi:10.2307/3332337 · Cited by 3,618
Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research
Maxwell, J. (1992) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826 · Cited by 2,951 · cited 2×
“…and to categorize efforts to accomplish such a definition, and to describe and codify techniques for both ensuring and recognizing good studies (e.g., Devers, 1999; Emden & Sandelowski, 1998, 1999; Engel & Kuzel, 1992; Maxwell, 1992; Seale, 1999; Sparkes, 2001; Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001).”
Background
Cited by
‘Clear as Mud’: Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690300200201 · Cited by 1,256
Long, H. A., French, D. P., & Brooks, J. M. (2020) · Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences · doi:10.1177/2632084320947559 · Cited by 1,112
Hong, Q. N., Gonzalez‐Reyes, A., & Pluye, P. (2018) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12884 · Cited by 1,107
Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt
Atkins, S., Lewin, S., Smith, H., Engel, M., Fretheim, A., & Volmink, J. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-21 · Cited by 981
(2003) · Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · Cited by 902
Metadata
- Authors
- Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 74-108
- ISSN
- 1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1881593387
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 52.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Reading Qualitative Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/160940690200100107
- The paper
- Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Reading Qualitative Studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100107
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.
