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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own interpretation · 7 Not checked yet · 4 No basis given · 1 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the idea that quotations can be employed to validate findings has limited support.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“However, from an ontological and epistemological perspective, we have found limited support for this viewpoint in the contemporary qualitative research literature.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Given the literature cited in this paper, and thus considering the ontological and epistemological foundations of qualitative research, there is limited support for such claims, that is, that quotations can substantiate a set of findings.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The origin of including quotations in qualitative research remains uncertain, and, so far, limited guidance in the scientific literature concerning quotations is noted.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: It is rare to find an account that justifies the inclusion of quotations or defines the purpose of including them.
In the paper
“Consequently, the essential literature of the qualitative traditions, such as constructivism, pragmatism, or the more recently recognized realism (Pawson & Tilley, 1997), provides limited evidence as to the justification for quoting data extracts in qualitative studies.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > The Scientific Claims Vis-à-Vis Quotations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pawson & Tilley, 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Subsequently, this review article became the foundation of the COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) guidelines, a 32-item checklist used by numerous journals.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tong et al., 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Yet, a 2007 review of checklists used to assess qualitative studies revealed that the most common provisos related to data collection and the validation of findings, that is to say, the description of how themes were developed and the inclusion of supporting quotations (Tong et al., 2007).”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tong et al., 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although earlier qualitative guidance suggests that quotations should support and enrich accumulated findings, validating them is instead accomplished by adopting strategies such as triangulation and cross-checks (Malterud, 2001).”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Malterud, 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today, a variety of ways to use quotations is observed in the practices of reporting qualitative research.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quotations are seemingly applied for several purposes: as evidence, explanation, illustration, impression, representation, and/or to enhance readability.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, some of the random examples do indicate that researchers may employ quotations to validate the results of a qualitative analysis.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Even so, guidance provided by, for example, COREQ (Tong et al., 2007) does constitute criteria regarding the effective application of quotations.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > The Scientific Claims Vis-à-Vis Quotations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tong et al., 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, while the routes discard any proposition of the relevance of employing quotations as evidence, we suggest that there is ontological and epistemological support for particular use of quotations in qualitative studies:”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Qualitative studies are often found to be accompanied by quotations from interviews or similar data sources.”
- Also stated in: § When Do Quotations Apply and Why-A Scope of the Literature · boosted
“Presenting authentic citations of what informants have uttered has become the “gold standard” in qualitative studies, and most people who read such papers and reports expect that there will be a number of such quotations; they may even expect a particular type of quotation (Brown, 2010).”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown, 2010
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § When Do Quotations Apply and Why-A Scope of the Literature · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While certain procedures, such as member checking or triangulation, have been proposed, a purposeful application of quotations may further illustrate and thus accredit a qualitative analysis and/or illuminate the findings in qualitative studies.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such “outliers” are generally of limited value for an enhanced understanding of the qualitative analysis process and/or the findings, which rather resembles a shared, conceptual understanding of meaning.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above suggestions challenge a fairly common initiative in that different quotations from several informants should be presented to support each category/theme in particular.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, while the routes discard any proposition of the relevance of employing quotations as evidence, we suggest that there is ontological and epistemological support for particular use of quotations in qualitative studies:”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the choice of how many quotations and the extent of the participants’ accounts is still a decision that must be made by the researchers, while considering the confidentiality of study informants.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We propose that two strategies are sustained for the use of quotations, each occupying different epistemological positionings for their use in qualitative studies.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Supplementary verification of quotations would bridge the common ambiguity about the rationale for using them.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent use of identifiers that do not reveal identities can aid this practice and will also inform the reader as to whether the data set is abundant;”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would also sustain future reviews, enabling both increased transparency and methodological advancement.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Well-founded motives for the use of quotations would allow for academic development.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature that we have addressed that calls for a more discerning, rather than common, practice could aid in the further establishment of well-founded principles.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Verbatim quotations can indeed convey a particular experience or statement, but unedited citations can also lead to a sense of exposure for an individual-especially if the number of participants in a study is limited.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, a potentially superficial approach may thereby have been taken, neglecting the “if,” “why,” “how” and “when” queries relating to the use of quotations in qualitative research.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, to affirm the analysis process, the quotations are likely to be more detailed than when the purpose is to illustrate the various features of a study, as described below.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a deliberate sample including quotations from most or all of the interviews indicates ample data to sustain the findings (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998)”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Denzin & Lincoln, 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the purpose and validity of quotes relies profoundly on the appraisal and skills of individual researchers and/or teams, they must decide whether the quotations inserted into a paper or report are presented verbatim or are edited or condensed.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quoting can have a certain purpose and quotations can operate well, although there is not one but several ways to employ them.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This would support qualitative studies becoming more transparent and compelling to their audiences.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we suggest that the use and purpose of quotations needs to be more purposeful and transparently described than is commonly seen today.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Many scholars, regardless of their level of experience and expertise, have a somewhat vague idea as to why, how, or when to quote.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the ontology of paradigms communicates a scientific worldview, we suggest that both routes correspond to a philosophical position that reflects the multiple perspectives of human experience.”
§ Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The informants and context are described to further improve credibility and validity, and quotations are used to illustrate the result [33].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“For narrative approaches, conceptual model development focuses on personal experiences, emotions, and life histories (Eldh et al., 2020).”
From A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research (2023) · cites this paper as Eldh et al., 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 · Cited by 42,509
Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches
Lewis, S. (2015) · Health Promotion Practice · doi:10.1177/1524839915580941 · Cited by 22,105
Qualitative research & evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (2002) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 15,530
Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology
Krippendorff, K. (2019) · doi:10.4135/9781071878781 · Cited by 15,448
Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 · Cited by 12,033 · cited 2×
“…abundant; a deliberate sample including quotations from most or all of the interviews indicates ample data to sustain the findings (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998), although this would not exclude a further consideration, vis-à-vis, for example, saturation in qualitative research (Saunders et al., 2018).”
Background(2016) · Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) · Cited by 8,424
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S. (1996) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001 · Cited by 7,281
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Brodsky, C. (1968) · Psychosomatics · doi:10.1016/s0033-3182(68)71872-7 · Cited by 6,728
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Londoño Fernández, J. L. (1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80230-0 · Cited by 5,754
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Bennett A., 2010, Rethinking social inquiry, 207
- Gadamer H.-G., 2013, Truth and method
- Glaser B. G., 1978, Theoretical sensitivity
- Pawson R., 1997, Realistic evaluation
- Ricoeur P., 1992, Oneself as another
- 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 301–368 of 368
Solmos, S., Eisenhauer, C. M., Lally, R. M., & Cuddigan, J. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22111603
Sørensen, M. M., Jäger, M., & Stochkendahl, M. J. (2025) · Chiropractic & Manual Therapies · doi:10.1186/s12998-025-00604-0
Deng, A., Zarrett, N. R., Bewley, M., & Chen, A. (2025) · Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · doi:10.1080/02701367.2025.2576087
Hausken‐Sutter, S. E., Moen, C., Sjølie, E. S., Bjørndal, C. T., Myklebust, G., Møller, M., & Grindem, H. (2025) · BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2025-002766
George, A., Blaauw, D., Dangor, Z., & Lala, S. G. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-08177-5
Strömberg, C. (2025) · doi:10.24834/isbn.9789178776849
Lakchan, U. G. C., Samaraweera, G. C., Gunawardena, T. S. L. W., & Fernando, P. J. S. (2025) · KDU Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies · doi:10.4038/kjms.v7i2.205
More Than Words: Evidencing Qualitative Findings Through Multimodal Narratives
Cheng, Y., & Swiecki, Z. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12229-2_16
Williams, S., Keogh, S., HERD, D. W., Riggall, S., Glass, R., & Douglas, C. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19351389
Golz, C., Bachmann, A. O., Defilippis, T. S., Kobleder, A., Peter, K. A., Schaffert, R., Schwarzenbach, X., Kampel, T., & Hahn, S. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21505562
Golz, C., Bachmann, A. O., Defilippis, T. S., Kobleder, A., Peter, K. A., Schaffert, R., Schwarzenbach, X., Kampel, T., & Hahn, S. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21505559
Golz, C., Bachmann, A. O., Defilippis, T. S., Kobleder, A., Peter, K. A., Schaffert, R., Schwarzenbach, X., Kampel, T., & Hahn, S. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21505556
Golz, C., Bachmann, A. O., Defilippis, T. S., Kobleder, A., Peter, K. A., Schaffert, R., Schwarzenbach, X., Kampel, T., & Hahn, S. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21505553
Strid, E. N., Wallin, L., & Nilsagård, Y. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23536018
Petkus, J. M. (2025) · Children s Health Care · doi:10.1080/02739615.2025.2600316
Venant, E., Biasiotto, R., Mosha, M. J., & Ancillotti, M. (2025) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2025.2601409
Open science imaginaries: Meanings and values among natural scientists in Brazil, France and Peru
Manco, A. (2025) · Cultures of Science · doi:10.1177/20966083251409492
Liu, X., Iwamoto, D. K., & Le, T. P. (2026) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.1080/10826084.2026.2615065
Pagpadayon: Milestones of a Student-Writer’s Journey
Salces, G. (2025) · International Journal of Interdisciplinary Viewpoints · doi:10.64612/ijiv.v1i6.41
Curley, E. J., Julian, S., & Pettus, C. (2026) · Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcop.70083
Hellum, N. (2026) · Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies · doi:10.31374/sjms.455
Kelemit, E., Halmambetova, E., Nilsson, E., Fagerström, C., & Ljungholm, L. (2026) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-026-03244-2
Peng, Y., Yuan, X., & Tan, Y. (2025) · International Association of Societies of Design Research Congress (IASDR) · doi:10.21606/iasdr.2025.562
Pitkänen, T., Takala, J., Heinonen, S., Helfer, A., Kantanen, P., Soininvaara, S., Tuovila, A., Uusimäki, V., Väistö, M., & Tourunen, J. (2026) · Kasvun tuki -aikakauslehti · doi:10.61259/kt.173201
Urinary Incontinence: Lived Experience of Adult Women. A Phenomenological Study Protocol
Trapani, S., Villa, G., Rosa, D., Baini, I., Rinaldi, S., Salvatore, S., Candiani, M., & Manara, D. F. (2026) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Nursing and Health · doi:10.82051/ijnh-2026-294
Lades, L. K., Lentz, P., Martin, L., & Augustenborg, C. A. (2026) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2026.115268
Leapfrogging inequality? Navigating a pathway to cleaner energy in rural Ghana
Boateng, D., Lennon, B., Bloomer, J., Morrissey, J. E., & Dunphy, N. (2026) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148231
Waste as economic resource: unlocking the opportunities for sustainable development in Ghana
Ahenkan, A., Boon, E. K., Nordjo, E., & Otchere‐Ankrah, B. (2026) · Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management · doi:10.1007/s10163-026-02564-w
Ilma, A. Z., Aminatun, T., & Widowati, A. (2026) · Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · doi:10.1007/s42330-026-00484-3
Balancing engagement in children’s nature play: insights from Norwegian ECEC teachers
Smedsrud, T. M., Lenes, R., & Moser, T. (2026) · European Early Childhood Education Research Journal · doi:10.1080/1350293x.2026.2661987
Powichit, J., & Todd, R. W. (2026) · Corpora · doi:10.3366/cor.2026.0354
Nurhasanah, E., Asmayanti, A., Setiawan, H., Masitoh, S., Mauludani, S., Nurfadilah, K. D., & Ambarwati, A. (2026) · LITERASI Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Bahasa Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah · doi:10.23969/literasi.v16i1.40872
A home in the ocean: how identity shapes social purpose in a small family business
Dinis, L., Cunha, M. P. E., & Hernández‐Linares, R. (2026) · Entrepreneurship and Regional Development · doi:10.1080/08985626.2026.2668359
Alshayhan, N., & Yusuf, J.-E. (. (2026) · Journal of Emergency Management · doi:10.5055/jem.0979
Slowing cities, sustaining destinations: insights from Akyaka’s Cittaslow experience
Kurnaz, H. A., Güzel, Ö., & Kurnaz, A. (2026) · International Journal of Tourism Cities · doi:10.1080/20565607.2026.2671883
Darko, G., Sadari, P., Quarshie, D., Agyekum, G. A., Salifu, Y., Odonkor, F. O., & Boateng, K. S. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-28131-4
Kemigisha, E. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9171816/v1
Pinto, V. R. A., Vione, K. C., Vasconcellos, C. D. F., de Souza, T. D., & Alvarenga, M. A. S. (2026) · Human Arenas · doi:10.1007/s42087-026-00670-7
Bentzen, M., Saarinen, M., Ottogalli‐Mazzacavallo, C., Sogn, H. E., Boyer, A., & Niçaise, V. (2026) · Journal of Applied Sport Psychology · doi:10.1080/10413200.2026.2683962
Gehrmann, J., Stephan, J., Stullich, A., Roick, J., Hoffmann, L., & Richter, M. (2026) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-026-02945-7
Accountability perspectives in the context of AI in intelligence and security investigations
Constantino, J., van Krimpen, F., van Gerwen, S., & Wagner, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2026.1812399
The views of gifted students regarding popular polar phenomena and their information sources
Arslan, A., & YİRMİBEŞOĞLU, S. (2026) · Polarforschung · doi:10.5194/polf-94-47-2026
Silva, L. R. (2025) · Movimento (Porto Alegre) · doi:10.22456/1982-8918.148602
Bilmez, B., Kaçmaz, C., Çelik, O. T., & Aral, N. (2026) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-026-03352-8
Lo, C. K., Xu, S., & Tlili, A. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70790
Alawami, S., & Hemingway, P. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.70506
Mahon, D. (2026) · Mental Health and Digital Technologies · doi:10.1108/mhdt-01-2026-0004
Empowering young writers: perspectives from the classroom on interactive digital tools for writing
Dunn, J., Mehigan, G., & Ballentine, M. (2026) · International Journal of Early Years Education · doi:10.1080/09669760.2026.2721581
Dynamic Changes in Pre-Service Language Teacher Well-Being in Practicum: An Ecological Approach
Yetkin, R., & Aslan, R. (2026) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688261471854
Mandirola, S. (2026) · Qualitative Research in Financial Markets · doi:10.1108/qrfm-07-2025-0240
Gehrmann, J., Dehner, J., Stephan, J., Stullich, A., & Richter, M. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7386879/v1
Hermansen, A., Peterson, G., Peolsson, A. L. C., & Strid, E. N. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261483535
Gallego-Jiménez, M. G., Manresa, S. T., & García‐Bravo, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1919815
Mok, S., Tep, N., Yen, S., Hor, M., Hok, P., & Voeun, C. (2026) · Daengku Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Innovation · doi:10.35877/454ri.daengku5024
Between opportunity and equity: navigating medical tourism in Türkiye’s public hospitals
Al-Hajeri, M., Demirci, Ş., Aras, Y., & Avcı, K. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-026-15636-2
Nurturing connections: Patient insights on online resources for cancer information and support
Knoppers, T., Bouhouita-Guermech, S., Bonilha, A. E., Voutsinas, A., Cosquer, M., & Zawati, M. H. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261475254
Nööjd, M., Elmasry, M., & Steinvall, I. (2026) · International Wound Journal · doi:10.1111/iwj.71064
Alenazy, B. A., Alhamidi, S. A., Al-Ghareeb, S. A., Asiri, M. Y., Alanazi, H., & Alyousef, S. M. (2026) · SAGE Open Nursing · doi:10.1177/23779608261494306
Mers, A. D. L., Gerber, M., & Rai, S. S. (2026) · Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community · doi:10.1080/10852352.2026.2737535
Yahya, N. F. A. N., Kamarudin, S., Cheng, H. Y., Mahdzir, M., & Umar, T. (2026) · PLANNING MALAYSIA · doi:10.21837/pm.v24i44.2302
Berglund, M. (2026) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.58235/sjpa.56399
Emery, C. V., Lawal, O., & Brooke, J. (2026) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2026.103603
The Mirror of Doubt: The Relational Process of Disclosing Violence Among Children and Young People
Henze‐Pedersen, S. (2026) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/08862605261497995
Jeglic, E. L., Winters, G. M., & Weiss, E. N. (2026) · Victims & Offenders · doi:10.1080/15564886.2026.2752157
Terengganu, U. M., Ahamat, M. I., Kabilan, M. K., Abdullah, N., Malaysia, U. S., Malang, U. N., & Selangor, U. T. M. (2026) · Mextesol journal. · doi:10.61871/mj.v50n2-3
Nawangsari, A. S., Nugroho, F., & Adi, I. R. (2024) · International Journal of Social Science Research and Review · doi:10.47814/ijssrr.v7i10.2368
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
