The quality of qualitative research has been subject to considerable criticism recently, partly driven by the development of an international movement for “evidence-based policy and practice.” In the United States, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are posited by some as the best way of producing reliable research knowledge. Also, responses to criticism of qualitative research is leading to the production of various “standards” and “guidelines” to control the production of qualitative research. This article argues that RCTs do not respond to policy makers' needs and timescales and, furthermore, that producing standards for qualitative research is more likely to restrict quality than enhance it. Rather, what is required of qualitative researchers is to engage with policy makers and research participants to acknowledge the limits of research knowledge while addressing issues of quality collaboratively.
American Educational Research Association. ( 2007). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://www.aera.net/opportunities/?id=1850
2.
Attree, P., & Milton, B. (2006). Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: Defusing the methodological cluster bombs. Evidence & Policy, 2(1), 109-128.
3.
Boaz, A., Solesbury, W., & Sullivan, F. (2004). The practice of research reviewing 1: An assessment of 28 review reports. London: U.K. Centre for Evidence-Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary College. Available at http://evidencenetwork.org
4.
Boaz, A., Solesbury, W., & Sullivan, F. (2007). The practice of research reviewing 2: Ten case studies of reviews. London: U.K. Centre for Evidence-Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary College. Available at http://evidencenetwork.org
5.
Bridges, D. (2005, December). The international and the excellent in educational research. Paper prepared for the "Challenges of the Knowledge Society for Higher Education" Conference, Kaunus, Lithuania.
6.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
7.
Brown, M. (1988). Issues in formulating and organising attainment targets in relation to their assessment. In H. Torrance (Ed.), National assessment and testing: A research response (pp. 15-25). Cheshire, UK: British Educational Research Association.
8.
Brown, S. (2003, September). Assessment of research quality: What hope of success?Keynote address to European Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Hamburg, Germany.
9.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.
10.
Cabinet Office. (2003a). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. A quality framework (full report). London: Author.
11.
Cabinet Office. (2003b). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. A quality framework (summary report). London: Author.
12.
Chatterji, M. (2005). Evidence on "What Works": An argument for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher , 34(5), 14-24.
13.
Davies, P. (2004). Systematic reviews and the Campbell Collaboration . In G. Thomas & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in education (pp. 21-33). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
14.
Davies, P., & Boruch, R. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration. British Medical Journal, 323, 294-295.
15.
Denzin, N., & Giardina, M. (Eds.). (2006). Qualitative inquiry and the conservative challenge. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
16.
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003 ). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational enquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
17.
Eisenhart, M. (2006). Qualitative science in experimental time. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 697-708.
18.
Eisenhart, M., & DeHaan, R. (2005). Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers. Educational Researcher , 34(4), 3-13.
19.
Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on "scientificallybased" education research. Educational Researcher , 32(7), 31-38.
20.
Elliott, J. (1989). Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
21.
Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor and science in educational research . Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21-24.
22.
Feuer, M., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
23.
Furlong, J., & Oancea, A. (2005). Assessing quality in applied and practice-based educational research. Swindon, UK: Economic and Social Research Council.
24.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Gough, D., & Elbourne, D. (2002). Systematic research synthesis to inform policy, practice and democratic debate. Social Policy and Society , 1(3), 225-236.
26.
Hammersley, M. (2001). On systematic reviews of research literature: A narrative response. British Educational Research Journal , 27(4), 543-554.
27.
Hammersley, M. (2005). The myth of research-based practice: The critical case of educational inquiry. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(4), 317-330.
28.
Hargreaves, D. (1996). Teaching as a research based profession (Teacher Training Agency annual lecture). London: Teacher Training Agency.
29.
Hillage, J., Pearson, R., Anderson, A., & Tamkin, P. (1998). Excellence in research on school (Department for Education and Employment Research Report 74). London: Department for Education and Employment.
30.
House, E., & Howe, K. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
James, M. (2006). Balancing rigour and responsiveness in a shifting context: Meeting the challenges of educational research. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 365-380.
32.
MacLure, M. (2005). "Clarity bordering on stupidity": Where's the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy , 20(4), 393-416.
33.
Maxwell, J. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research and scientific enquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
34.
Newman, M., & Elbourne, D. (2004). Improving the usability of educational research: Guidelines for the REPOrting of primary empirical research studies in education (the REPOSE guidelines). Evaluation and Research in Education , 18(4), 201-212.
35.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
National Research Council. (2005). Advancing scientific research in education. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing. Cambridge , UK: Polity.
38.
Oakley, A. (2003). Research evidence, knowledge management and educational practice: Early lessons from a systematic approach. London Review of Education, 1(1), 21-33.
39.
Oakley, A. (2006). Resistances to new technologies of evaluation: Education research in the UK as a case study. Evidence and Policy, 2(1), 63-88.
40.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). Educational research and development in England (OECD Review, CERI/CD(2002)10). Paris: Author.
41.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London : Sage.
Pollard, A. (2006). So, how then to approach research capacity building ? Research Intelligence, 97, 18-20.
44.
Ragin, C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (2004). Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research. Retrieved September 27, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/start.htm
45.
Riehl, C. (2006). Feeling better: A comparison of medical research and educational research. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 24-29.
46.
Schoenfeld, A. (2006). What doesn't work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13-21.
47.
Shavelson, R., Phillips, D., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.
48.
Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher , 31(7), 15-21.
49.
Somekh, B., Underwood, J., Convery, A., Dillon, G., Jarvis, J., Lewin, C., et al. (2007). Evaluation of the ICT TestBed project: Final report June 2007. Coventry, UK: Becta.
50.
Somekh, B., & Saunders, L. (2007). Developing knowledge through intervention: Meaning and definition of "quality" in research into change. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 183-197.
51.
Somekh, B., & Schwandt, T. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge production: The work of educational research in interesting times. London : Routledge.
52.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development . London: Heinemann Books.
53.
St. Pierre, E., & Roulston, K. (2006). The state of qualitative inquiry: A contested science. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 19(6), 673-684.
54.
Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (Eds.). (2005). Evidence-based practice in education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
55.
Tooley, J., & Darby, D. (1998). Educational research: A critique. London: Office for Standards in Education.
56.
Torrance, H. (2003). Assessment of the national curriculum in England . In T. Kellaghan & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 905-928). Boston: Kluwer.
57.
Torrance, H. (2006). Globalising empiricism: What if anything can be learned from international comparisons of educational achievement? In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough, & H. A. Halsey (Eds.), Education, globalisation and social change (pp. 824-834). New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
Torrance, H., Colley, H., Ecclestone, K., Garratt, D., James, D., & Piper, H. (2005). The impact of different modes of assessment on achievement and progress in the learning and skills sector. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
59.
Torrance, H., & Coultas, J. (2004). Do summative assessment and testing have a positive or negative effect on post-16 learners' motivation for learning in the learning and skills sector. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
60.
Wade, C., Turner, H., Rothstein, H., & Lavenberg, J. (2006). Information retrieval and the role of the information specialist in producing high-quality systematic reviews in the social, behavioural and education sciences. Evidence and Policy, 2(1), 89-108.
61.
Yates, L. (2004). What is quality in educational research?Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
62.
Yates, L. (2005, July). Is impact a measure of quality? Producing quality research and producing quality indicators of research in Australia . Keynote address for the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference on "Quality in Educational Research: Directions for Policy and Practice,"Cairns, Australia.
