Criteria for Qualitative Research

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is different from quantitative in that the data analyzed and the methods by which the data are analyzed are unique. Qualitative research tends to be exploratory—the data obtained is used to describe the phenomenon under scrutiny, usually in thematic terms, while quantitative research tends to test a hypothesis—the data obtained can usually be statistically analyzed and understood in numeric terms. When it comes to evaluating the quality of research designs, reliability and validity are two considerations that have to be made: does the study measure what it purports to measure, and can the study’s findings be reproduced among the same population using the same method? Those are the questions to ask. For qualitative research, the criteria are a little different than for quantitative research, primarily because in the former the nature of the data is more subjective, more intuitive, more personal—it is difficult to tell the extent to which a qualitative study can really be deemed valid or reliable. However, it is possible to define the criteria in some ways. As Golafshani (2003) notes, the concepts of reliability and validity just have to be redefined for qualitative studies in order for them to make sense.
Two criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research designs would be to assess the design for credibility and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Seale, 1999). Credibility looks at the fact that whenever one is looking at human experiences and the subjective data, typically intuited using methods like eidetic reduction or imaginative variation (Lin, 2013), there is bound to be more than one “correct” perspective and more than one “correct” answer. The goal when it comes to credibility is to arrive at data that would be seen as accurately reflecting reality as seen by the participants in the study—i.e., the data would seem plausible to them (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For transferability, the findings would have to be comparable to findings in similar contexts—i.e., they are applicable in similar settings.
In terms of the theories of knowledge (epistemology) and being (ontology), these criteria are tied to assumptions with respect to the way that people behave, communicate, and make judgments based on the information presented them. In my discipline, which is Public Policy and Administration, these assumptions are standard in the sense that norms exist with regard to the way individuals are expected to conduct themselves, discuss ideas, express concepts or experiences, and make judgments or acquire knowledge through senses, intuition, and deduction.
A potential ethical issue in qualitative research would be the need to keep the identity of participants concealed or anonymous. This could be problematic because in qualitative research, the more information about participants that is presented the more helpful the study is. The point of qualitative research is to provide a deep understanding of a particular phenomenon—so to leave out key details of participants, especially in a small sample, can be to miss out on key variables that could provide context to help understand the overall data. However, it is also important that participants not be identified, especially if they do not want their information disclosed. This therefore might compel the researcher to alter the design so that participants are more anonymously approached—as in via a survey collection tool.
What it means for a research topic to be amenable to scientific study using a qualitative approach is that it can be explored rather than tested. This means there is more to know about the topic that can be intuited. This then could lead to hypotheses being developed later on.
References
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–606.
Lin, C. (2013). Revealing the “Essence” of Things: Using Phenomenology in LIS
Research. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML), 4, 469-478.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.