Cited by 368Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsData Analysis and Archiving

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 7 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose

Open access
Eldh, Ann Catrine, Årestedt, Liselott, Berterö, Carina·2020·International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Abstract

Qualitative studies are often found to be accompanied by quotations from interviews or similar data sources. As with any methodological tradition, it is essential to critically explore the general principle of including quotations in scientific papers: what is the purpose and justification for including quotations? Are there standards and, in that case, what are they and what are their scientific positioning? This paper presents an overview of the somewhat diverse guidance found in the literature in reference to the representation of quotations. Yet, both students and scholars use a variety of approaches to quote from their data, ranging from presenting numerous, extensive, and/or comprehensive quotations throughout the results section to the reporting of a few particular quotations to illustrate certain aspects of the findings only. While their function may be described, scientific reasoning for using quotations is scarce. Along with an overview of the scientific background and options for including quotations in qualitative studies, we discuss the consequences of the different epistemological and methodological aspects found in the literature. In conclusion, we argue that there are incentives for promoting a more deliberate employment of references from data; deriving from the human sciences tradition, a corresponding epistemological stance would suggest that quotations preferably apply for illustrating the analysis process and/or findings, while the idea that quotations can be employed to validate findings has limited support. Further critical examination of the application of and justification for including quotations in the reporting of qualitative studies is needed among researchers, journal editors and reviewers.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This methodological reflection reviews guidance on why and how quotations are used in qualitative research and argues that their inclusion is often habitual rather than scientifically justified. The authors propose that quotations are best used deliberately to illustrate the analysis process and/or findings, while support for using quotations as evidence to validate findings is limited.

Key findings

  • The literature offers diverse and sometimes contradictory guidance on quotations: they are often expected as a “gold standard,” can enhance readability and bring content to life, and may illustrate participants’ perspectives, but scientific reasoning for quoting is scarce.
  • The COREQ checklist contains 32 items, two of which concern quotations: whether participant quotations were presented to illustrate themes/findings and whether each quotation was identified, and whether there was consistency between the data presented and the findings.
  • The authors propose two epistemologically grounded uses: quotations to illustrate the data analysis process (descriptive representation; sequential, each analysis phase accompanied by quotations, more detailed, limited modifications, confidentiality protected) and quotations to illustrate findings (interpretative approach; bring text to life, highlight features, avoid cherry-picking outliers, can be placed randomly, modifications may exclude superfluous text).
  • They argue there is limited ontological and epistemological support for using quotations to validate findings; validation is instead accomplished through strategies such as triangulation and cross-checks.

Methods

  • Conceptual/discussion paper, not an empirical study; it presents an overview of literature and reflects on epistemological and methodological aspects of including quotations in qualitative reporting.
  • No data collection, sample, or empirical analysis is reported; the authors discuss selected literature and examples and propose two strategies for quotation use.
  • Main analysis is a critical narrative synthesis of guidance, checklists, and paradigmatic positions, concluding with recommendations for researchers, editors, and reviewers.

Limitations

  • Stated: the origin of including quotations in qualitative research remains uncertain, limited scientific guidance exists, and further critical examination is needed among researchers, journal editors, and reviewers.
  • Stated: the authors note that their examples are “random examples” and that many studies did not equally propose a rationale for presenting quotations.
  • Evident: the paper is not a systematic review and reports no empirical data; its proposals are conceptual and depend on the authors’ interpretive synthesis of selected literature.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1609406920969268

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 7 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 6 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 26
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 6
26 of 26
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is rare to find an account that justifies the inclusion of quotations or defines the purpose of including them.

    “Yet, it is rare to find an account that justifies the inclusion of quotations or that defines the purpose of including them.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    COREQ guidance is widely accepted as the norm in reporting qualitative research.

    “While this guidance is widely accepted as the norm in reporting qualitative research, we propose instead that further discussion regarding the practice of enrolling quotations is needed.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many scholars, regardless of their level of experience and expertise, have a somewhat vague idea as to why, how, or when to quote.

    “Hence, it comes as no surprise that many scholars, regardless of their level of experience and expertise, have a somewhat vague idea as to why, how, or when to quote.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The origin of including quotations in qualitative research remains uncertain.

    “The origin of including quotations in qualitative research remains uncertain, and, so far, limited guidance in the scientific literature concerning quotations is noted.”
4 of 4

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 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bennett A., 2010, Rethinking social inquiry, 207
  2. Gadamer H.-G., 2013, Truth and method
  3. Glaser B. G., 1978, Theoretical sensitivity
  4. Pawson R., 1997, Realistic evaluation
  5. Ricoeur P., 1992, Oneself as another
  6. The Oxford English Dictionary. (2020). Oxford University Press. June 8, 2020. https://www-oed-com.e.bibl.liu.se/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 368

Metadata

Authors
Eldh, A. C., Årestedt, L., & Berterö, C.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Linnaeus University (SE)
Corresponding author
Eldh, Ann Catrine
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Published
2020-01-01
Volume
19
ISSN
1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3095098358
Cited by
362
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 22
FWCI
56.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
Keywords
epistemology of qualitative research, methodological standards, editorial practice

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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