Due to the diversity of research options, as well as the lack of consensus regarding criteria for research quality, an evaluative process is needed that can take into account the different characteristics of diverse research options and their specific contributions. Therefore, it is essential to carry out the evaluation of qualitative research in a pluralistic setting. The author’s observation is that research needs to be understood as a political concern within the domain of justice. This means that it is necessary to move forward with the construction of a more democratic setting so that differences between scientists and scientific communities can be dealt with, and the right of researchers to promote and develop different paradigms and research options can therefore be guaranteed, as well as facilitating dialogue and mutual learning between researchers and different paradigms. Its construction will imply discussions, tensions, and agreements that go beyond the epistemological and theoretical sphere into a political and moral one.
AdornoT. (2006). Introducción a la Sociología [Introduction to sociology]. Barcelona, Spain: Gedisa.
2.
AgarM. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
3.
AngrosinoM.KimberlyM. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 673-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
4.
ArendtH. (1998). La condición humana [The human condition]. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
5.
BarbourR. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?British Medical Journal, 322, 1115-1117.
6.
BergerP.LuckmannT. (1968). La construcción social de la realidad [The social construction of reality]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu Editores.
7.
BourdieuP. (1998). Capital cultural, escuela y espacio social [Cultural capital, school and social space] (2nd ed.). México City, Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno.
8.
CalderónC. (2009). Evaluación de la calidad de la investigación cualitativa en salud: criterios, proceso y escritura [Assessing the quality of qualitative health research: Criteria, process, and writing]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0902178
9.
ChristiansC. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In DenzinN.LarrosaY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 139-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
ClandininD. J.RosiekJ. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry. Borderland spaces and tensions. In ClandininJ. (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry. Mapping a methodology (pp. 35-75). London: SAGE.
11.
ConnellyM.ClandininD. J. (1995). Relatos de experiencia e investigación narrativa [Tales of experience and narrative research]. In LarrosaJ.ArnausR.FerrerV.Pérez de LaraN.ConnellyM.CandininD. J.GreeneM. (Eds.), Déjame que te cuente. Ensayos sobre narrativa y educación (pp. 11-59). Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Laertes.
DenzinN. (2003). Performance ethnography. Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
DenzinN.GiardinaM. (2008). Introduction: The elephant in the living room, or advancing the conversation about the politics of evidence. In DenzinN.GiardinaM. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the politics of evidence (pp. 9-51). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
15.
DenzinN.GiardinaM. (2009). Introduction: Qualitative inquiry and social justice. Toward a politics of hope. In DenzinN.GiardinaM. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and social justice (pp. 11-50). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
16.
DenzinN.LincolnY. (2000). Introduction. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
DenzinN.LincolnY. (2005). Preface. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. IX-XIX). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
DenzinN.LincolnY.GiardinaM. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 769-782.
19.
Fals-BordaO. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 27-37). London: SAGE.
20.
FernándezJ. M. (2004). Interdisciplinariedad en las ciencias sociales: Perspectivas abiertas por la obra de Pierre Bourdieu [Interdisciplinarity in social sciences: Perspectives opened up by the works of Pierre Bourdieu] .Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 17, 169-193.
21.
FeyerabendP. (1975). Contra el método [Against method]. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.
22.
FlickU. (2006). Quality criteria in qualitative research. In FlickU. (Ed.), An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 367-383). London: SAGE.
23.
GadamerH. G. (2006). Verdad y método II [Truth and method II]. Salamanca, Spain: Sígueme.
24.
GallagherS. (1993). The place of phronesis in postmodern hermeneutics. Philosophy Today, 37, 298-305.
25.
GeertzC. (1993). Descripción densa: hacia una teoría interpretativa de la cultura [Dense description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture]. In BohannanP.GlazerM. (Eds.), Antropología: Lecturas (2nd ed., pp. 547-568). Madrid, Spain: McGraw-Hill.
26.
GoetzJ.LeCompteM. (1988). Etnografía y diseño cualitativo en investigación educativa [Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research]. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Morata.
27.
GubaE. (1990a). The alternative paradigm dialog. In GubaE. (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
28.
GubaE. (1990b). Carrying on the dialog. In GubaE. (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 368-378). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
29.
GutierrezC. (2008, October). Pluralismo y hermenéutica [Pluralism and hermeneutics]. Estud. Filos, pp. 27-35.
30.
HabermasJ. (1987). Teoría de la acción comunicativa [Theory of communicative action]. Madrid, Spain: Taurus.
31.
HabermasJ. (1990). Conocimiento e interés [Knowledge and human interests]. Madrid, Spain: Taurus.
32.
HammersleyM. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.
33.
HammersleyM. (2009). Challenging relativism. The problem of assessment criteria. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 3-29.
34.
HammersleyM.AtkinsonP. (1994). Etnografía: Métodos de investigación [Ethnography: Research methods]. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
35.
HernándezM. (2001). La bioética y el pluralismo ético [Bioetics and ethical pluralism]. Revista Gerencia y Políticas de Salud, 1, 74-85.
36.
JanisekV. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209-219). London: SAGE.
37.
KantI. (1989). Metafísica de las costumbres. Doctrina del derecho [Metaphysics of morals]. Madrid, Spain: Tecnos.
38.
KincheloeJ.McLarenP. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 303-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
LincolnY. (2005). Institutional review boards and methodological conservatism. The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 165-181). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
LincolnY.GubaE. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
41.
LyotardJ. F. (1998). La condición postmoderna. Informe sobre el saber [The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge]. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Cátedra.
42.
MaysN.PopeC. (2000). Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50-52.
43.
MorseJ. (1999). Myth #93: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 717-718.
44.
MorseJ. (2006). The politics of evidence. Qualitative Health Research, 16(3), 395-404.
45.
OspinaC. A.BoteroP. (2007). Estética, narrativa y construcción de lo público [Aesthetics, narrative and the construction of the public]. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 5(2), 811-840.
46.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
47.
PieperA. (1991). Ética y Moral. Una introducción a la filosofía práctica [Ethics and moral. An introduction to practical philosophy]. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Crítica.
48.
RawlsJ. (1995). Liberalismo politico [Political liberalism]. México City, Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
49.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1-14). London: SAGE.
50.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (2008). Introduction. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 1-10). London: SAGE.
51.
SánchezC. (2003). Hannah Arendt. El espacio de la política [Hannah Arendt: Political space]. Madrid, Spain: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
52.
SchwandtT. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 58-72.
53.
SchwandtT. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
SenA. (2010). La idea de la justicia [The idea of justice]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Taurus.
55.
SilvermanD. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
56.
SmithJ.HodkinsonP. (2005). Relativism, criteria, and politics. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3nd ed., pp. 915-932). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57.
SmithJ.HodkinsonP. (2009). Challenging neorealism: A response to Hammersley. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 30-39.
58.
SparkesC. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 538-552.
59.
SteinkeI. (2004). Qualitative criteria in qualitative research. In FlickW.von KardorffE.SteinkeI. (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 184-190). London: SAGE.
60.
StigeB.MalterudI. K.MidtgardenT. (2009). Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(10), 1504-1516.
61.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada [Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory]. Medellín, Spain: Editorial de la Universidad de Antioquia.
62.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003). Preface. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social behavioral research (pp. ix-xv). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
63.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriC. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
64.
TedlockB. (2000). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 455-486). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
65.
TéllezG. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu: conceptos básicos y construcción socioeducativa [Pierre Bourdieu: Basic concepts and socioeducational construction]. Bogotá, Spain: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
66.
WhittemoreR.ChaseS.MandleC. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537.
67.
WolcottH. (2003). En búsqueda de la esencia de la etnografía [In search of the essence of ethnography]. Investigación y Educación en Enfermería, 21(2), 106-121.
