In this paper, we consider Tracy’s proposal for universal criteria to judge the goodness of qualitative studies, and we explore her criteria by applying them to our own work. As a test of Tracy’s claim to universality, we situate her ideas within a womanist caring framework, using it as an exemplar to theorize deliberately Tracy’s criteria. We do this to evaluate just how theoretically limber Tracy’s criteria actually are. We conclude that Tracy’s criteria are useful because they are universal but not fixed and we build on her thinking to foreground ethics as an overarching framework for criteria rather than a standalone category. We highlight the urgency of returning the debate about criteria for qualitative work to the qualitative research community during a period when the legitimacy of qualitative work is under assault.
AltheideD. L.JohnsonJ. M. (1998). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 283-312). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2.
Beauboeuf-LafontantT. (2002). A womanist experience of caring: Understanding the pedagogy of exemplary Black women teachers. The Urban Review, 34, 71-86.
3.
BochnerA. P. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 266-272. doi:10.1177/107780040000600209
4.
CannellaG. S.LincolnY. S. (2004). Dangerous discourses II: Comprehending and countering the redeployment of discourses (and resources) in the generation of liberatory inquiry. Qualitative inquiry, 10, 165-174.
5.
CarterM. (2003). Telling tales out of school: “What’s the fate of a Black story in a White world of White stories?” In LopezG. R.ParkerL. (Eds.), Interrogating racism in qualitative research methodology (pp. 29-48). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
6.
CaseK. I. (1997). African American othermothering in the urban elementary school. The Urban Review, 29, 25-39.
7.
ChoJ.TrentA. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6, 319-340. doi:10.1177/1468794106065006
8.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
DenzinN. K. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21, 315-325. doi:10.1080/09518390802136995
11.
DenzinN. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9, 139-160. doi:10.1177/1468794108098034
12.
DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (2008). Qualitative Inquiry and the politics of evidence. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
13.
FosterM. (1999). Race, class, and gender in education research: Surveying the political terrain. Educational Policy, 13, 77-85.
14.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (GordonC.MarshallL.MephamJ.SoperK., Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon.
15.
FreemanM.deMarraisK.PreissleJ.RoulstonK., St.PierreE. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25-32.
16.
FreemanM. (2011). Validity in dialogic encounters with hermeneutic truths. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 543-551. doi:10.1177/1077800411409887
17.
GarrattD.HodkinsonP. (1998). Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 515-539. doi:10.1177/107780049800400406
18.
GolafshaniN. (2003). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597-607.
19.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
KvaleS. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 19-40.
LatherP. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 15-34. doi:10.1177/1077800403256154
23.
LincolnY. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-289.
24.
LincolnY. S.CannellaG. S. (2004). Dangerous discourses: Methodological conservatism and governmental regimes of truth. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 5-14. doi:10.1177/1077800403259717
25.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
MarshallC. (1985). Appropriate criteria of trustworthiness and goodness for qualitative research on education organizations. Quality & Quantity, 19, 353-373.
ScheurichJ. J. (1996). The masks of validity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 49-60.
29.
SchwandtT. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58-72.
30.
SealeC. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 465-478.
31.
SmithJ. K.DeemerD. K. (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 877-896). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
StanleyC. A. (2007). When counter narratives meet master narratives in the journal editorial-review process. Educational Researcher, 36, 14-24. doi:10.3102/0013189X06298008
33.
St. PierreE. A. (2006). Scientifically-based research in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 239-266. doi:10.1177/0741713606289025
34.
St. PierreE. A.RoulstonK. (2006). The state of qualitative inquiry: A contested science. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 673-687. doi:10.1080/09518390600975644
35.
TillmanL. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African American perspective. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3-12.
TysonC. (2003). Research, race, and an epistemology of emancipation. In LopezG. R.ParkerL. (Eds.), Interrogating racism in qualitative research (pp. 19-28). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
38.
WelchS. (1990). A feminist ethic of risk. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
