Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,184

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research

·2004·The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods
DOI 10.4135/9781412950589.n846
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Author(s): Kirk, J; Miller, ML | Abstract: Vol I in the Qualitative Research Methods series, in 6 Chpts, with a series Introduction, an editors' Introduction, a a Glossary, discusses the scientific status of field data a offers a practical guide for participant-observation fieldwork. (1) Objectivity in Qualitative Research -- examines the concept of objectivity a outlines the plan of the book. (2) Reliability and Validity -- discusses the positivist view a analyzes the components of objectivity. (3) The Problem of Validity -- describes an approach to checking validity, illustrated by concrete examples from fieldwork in Peru a Sri Lanka. (4) Toward Theoretical Validity -- briefly reviews the work of nineteenth-century anthropologists, a of Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski, a the Chicago School. (5) The Problem of Reliability -- offers illustrations of reliability checks, especially in the method of taking fieldnotes. (6) Ethnographic Decision Making: The Four Phases of Qualitative Research -- presents a process model for fieldwork. 2 Figures, 117 References.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4135/9781412950589.n846

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 2,184

Metadata

Venue
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods
Publisher
Sage Publications, Inc.
Published
2004
DOI
10.4135/9781412950589.n846
OpenAlex
W2149180891
Cited by
2,184
References
0
Type
reference entry
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781412950589.n846
The paper
Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. (2004). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589.n846

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.