Qualitative research is no longer the “poor relation” to quantitative research that it has been in the past. However, it is important to monitor the manner in which it is becoming incorporated into the mainstream. In this article, the author examines current dangers and challenges by critically reviewing current developments affecting our own research practice. It is argued that technical essentialism (including the co-option of grounded theory) characterizes many responses to qualitative research. The author concludes by suggesting that our own everyday research practice, involving teaching and supervision, provides an opportunity to advance debates about rigor by allowing us to formulate a considered response that respects both the complexities and the unique contribution that qualitative research can make.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606.
2.
Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn or blind alley? Qualitative Health Research, 7, 325-344.
3.
Barbour, R. S. (1998). Mixing qualitative methods: Quality assurance or qualitative quagmire? Qualitative Health Research, 8, 352-361.
4.
Barbour, R. S. (1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4, 39-43.
5.
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigor in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115-1117.
6.
Barbour, R. S., & Huby, G. (Eds.). (1998). Meddling with mythology: AIDS and the social construction of knowledge. London: Routledge.
7.
Barry, C., Britten, N., Barber, N., Bradley, C., & Stevenson, F. (1999). Using reflexivity to optimize team-work in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 26-44.
8.
Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (Eds.). (1994). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.
9.
Chapple, A., & Rogers, A. (1998). Explicit guidelines for qualitative research: A step in the right direction, a defence of the “soft” option, or a form of sociological imperialism? Family Practice, 15(6), 556-561.
10.
Collins, P. (1998). Negotiating selves: Reflections on “unstructured” interviewing. Sociological Research Online, 3(3). Retrieved February 13, 2003, from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/2.html
11.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
12.
Green, J. (1998). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method [Commentary]. British Medical Journal, 316, 1064-1065.
13.
Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 257-272.
14.
Harding, G., & Gantley, M. (1998). Qualitative methods: Beyond the cookbook. Family Practice, 15, 76-79.
15.
Harding, G., & Gantley, M. (1999, July). You only want me for my methods. Paper presented at the Academic Departments of General Practice (AUDGP) Annual Conference, London.
16.
Hoddinott, P., & Pill, R. (1997). A review of recently published qualitative research in general practice: More methodological questions than answers? Family Practice, 14, 313-320.
17.
Hutchinson, S. A. (2001). The development of qualitative health research: Taking stock. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 505-521.
18.
Krueger, R. A. (1993). Quality control in focus group research. In D. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 65-85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 31-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
21.
Mauthner, N. S., Parry, O., & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). The data are out there, or are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data. Sociology, 32(4), 733-745.
22.
Melia, K. M. (1997). Producing “plausible stories”: Interviewing student nurses. In G. Miller & R. Dingwall (Eds.), Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 26-36). London: Sage.
23.
Miller, G. (1997). Introduction: Context and method in qualitative research. In G. Miller & R. Dingwall (Eds.), Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 1-11). London: Sage.
24.
Morse, J. M. (1997). Perfectly healthy, but dead: The myth of inter-rater reliability. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 445-447.
25.
Morse, J. M. (2000). Theoretical congestion [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 715-716.
26.
Morse, J. M. (2001a). The awfulness of simplification [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 435.
27.
Morse, J. M. (2001b). Steps and strategies [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 147-148.
28.
Popay, J., Williams, G., & Rogers, A. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341-351.
29.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp.173-194). London: Routledge.
30.
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.
31.
Seale, C., & Silverman, D. (1997). Ensuring rigor in qualitative research. European Journal of Public Health, 7, 379-384.
32.
Silverman, D. (1992). Applying the qualitative method to clinical care. In J. Daly, I. McDonald, & E. Willis (Eds.), Researching health care: Designs, dilemmas, disciplines (pp.176-188). London: Routledge.
33.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods of analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
34.
Thomas, W. I. (1949). Social structure and social theory. New York: Free Press.
