Qualitative evaluation studies can differ markedly from quantitative ones in both purpose and method and therefore must be understood and evaluated on their own terms. This article defines qualitative evaluation research and describes key parameters of quality to be considered when conducting and evaluating these studies in terms that take their epistemological assumptions and unique methods into account. Dimensions discussed include clarity in the research question, identifying the epistemological framework, using theory and prior knowledge effectively, addressing ethical issues, documenting all aspects of the study method, ensuring trustworthiness of the data, and communicating findings effectively.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastas, J. W. (1999a, March). Realism: An epistemology to support the teaching of qualitative inquiry. Paper presented at the annual program meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Francisco.
2.
Anastas, J. W. (1999b). Research design for social work and the human services (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
3.
Anastas, J. W., & MacDonald, M. (1994). Research design for social work and the human services. New York: Lexington Books.
4.
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33. Retrieved March 27, 2002, from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.html
5.
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative data analysis: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115-1117. Retrieved November 16, 2001, from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7294/1115
6.
Beaman, S. K. (1995). Maximizing credibility and accountability in qualitative data analysis: A social work research case example. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 22(4), 99-114.
7.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing from among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Drisko, J. W. (1997). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to promote academic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 185-197.
10.
Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 267-294.
11.
Gibeau, J. L. (1999). Pathways from homelessness. Boston: Committee to End Elder Homelessness, Inc.
12.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
13.
Greene, J. C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Grinnell, R. M. (2001.) Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (6th ed.) Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
15.
Heineman Pieper, M. (1994). Science, not scientism: The robustness of naturalistic clinical research. In E. Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 71-88). New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Nugent, W. R. (1991). An experimental and qualitative analysis of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for anger. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 27, 3-8.
18.
Padgett, D. K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Punch, M. (1994). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 83-97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Reissman, C. K. (1994). Qualitative studies in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Rodwell, M. K., & Woody, D. (1994). Constructivist evaluation: The policy/practice context. In E. Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 315-327). New York: Columbia University Press.
23.
Rorty, R. (1982). The consequences of pragmatism: Essays, 1972-1980. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
Rosenthal, C. (1998). Toward a better understanding of the use of psychodynamically-informed treatment with Latinos: Findings from clinician experience. (Doctoral dissertation, Smith College School for Social Work, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59/08,p. 3212.
25.
Royce, D., Thyer, B. T., Padgett, D. K., & Logan, T. K. (2001). Program evaluation: An introduction (3rd. ed). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
26.
Ruckdeschel, R., Earnshaw, P., & Firrek, A. (1994). The qualitative case study and evaluation: Issues, methods, and examples. In E. Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 251-264). New York: Columbia University Press.
27.
Sherman, E., & Reid, W. J. (Eds.). (1994). Qualitative research in social work. New York: Columbia University Press.
28.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
31.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods of assessing program effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.
33.
Zaruba, K. E., Toma, J. D., & Stark, J. S. (1996). Criteria used for qualitative research in the refereeing process. Review of Higher Education, 19, 435-460.
