Although they complain that qualitative proposals are not reviewed fairly when funding agencies use quantitative criteria, qualitative researchers have failed the system by not developing alternative criteria for the evaluation of qualitative proposals. In this article, the author corrects this deficit by presenting criteria to assess the relevance, rigor, and feasibility of qualitative research. These criteria are not a checklist but rather a series of questions that can aid a reviewer, adept in qualitative methods, to comprehensively evaluate and defend qualitative research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brink, P. J. (1990). Dialogue: The granting game. In J.M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Cheek, J. (2000). An untold story? Doing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 401-420). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Cohen, M. Z., Knafl, K., & Dzurec, L. C. (1993). Grant writing for qualitative research. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25(2), 151-156.
4.
Connelly, L., & Yoder, L. H. (2000). Improving qualitative proposals: Common problem areas. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 14(2), 69-74.
5.
Corbin, J., & Morse, J.M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 335-354.
6.
Davis, D. S. (1991). Rich cases: Ethics of thick description. Hastings Center Report, 21(4), 12-17.
7.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
8.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
9.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.
10.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Hupcey, J. (1998). Clarifying the social support theory-research linkage. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 1231-1241.
12.
Morse, J. M. (1991a). On funding qualitative proposals [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 192, 147-151.
13.
Morse, J. M. (1991b). The structure and function of gift-giving in the patient-nurse relationship. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 13, 597-615.
14.
Morse, J. M. (1992). The myth of the programmatic research grant. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 24(2), 15-25.
15.
Morse, J. M. (1996). The qualitative proposal. In J.M. Morse & P.A. Field (Eds.), Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches (pp. 160-196). Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes.
16.
Morse, J. M. (1997). The pertinence of pilot studies [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 323-324.
17.
Morse, J. M. (2002). Myth #53: Qualitative research is cheap [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1307-1308.
18.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed and multi-method method research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed method (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Morse, J. M., Hupcey, J., Penrod, J.A., Spiers, J., Pooler, C., & Mitcham, C. (2002). Issues of validity: Behavioral concepts, their derivation and interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(4), Article 3. Retrieved Dec 17, 2002, from http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm
20.
Morse, J. M., & Mitcham, C. (2002) Exploring qualitatively-derived concepts: Inductive-deductive pitfalls. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(4), Article 3. Retrieved Dec 17, 2002, from http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm
21.
Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a reader's guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Munhall, P. L. (2001). Institutional review of qualitative research proposals: A task of no small consequence. In P. L. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (3rd ed., pp. 551-564). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
23.
Norris, J. (1991). Mothers' involvement with their adolescent daughters' abortions. In J.M. Morse & J.L. Johnson (Eds.), The illness experience: Dimensions of suffering (pp. 210-236). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (2001). Qualitative methods in health research: Opportunities and considerations in application and review (NIH Publication No. 02-5040). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
25.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In Y. Lincoln & N. Denzin (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative inquiry (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Tripp-Reimer, T. (1986). The Heritage Health Project: A research proposal submitted to the Division of Nursing. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 8, 207-228.
27.
Tripp-Reimer, T., & Cohen, M. Z. (1991). Funding strategies for qualitative research. In J. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 243-256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Wuest, J., & Merritt-Gray, M. (2001). Feminist grounded theory revisited: Practical issues and new understandings. In R.S. Schreiber & P.N. Stern (Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 159-176). New York: Springer.
