Table 2 Two dominant narratives identified in the literature on assuring quality of qualitative research
From: Quality assurance of qualitative research: a review of the discourse
Narrative | Perspective | Context | Conceptualisation of quality in qualitative research | Examples | Methods for quality assurance recommended in the literature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Output-oriented approach | External, post-hoc | Efforts to demonstrate credibility of research alongside dominant positivist paradigm, often in context of evidence-based medicine model | Range of theoretical constructs of quality; drawn from positivist paradigm, or post-positivist theory | Validity Rigour Confirmability Credibility Trustworthiness | Demonstrating use of techniques considered to be indicators of quality practice, for example: • triangulation • member checking • negative case analysis • theoretical sampling • peer review |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Use of 'checklists' commonly recommended |
Process-oriented approach | Internal, researcher-led; on-going | Critique of output-focused approach, with reliance on fixed techniques and constructs of quality derived from positivist paradigm | Principles or values of 'best practice', inherent to qualitative approach | Reflexivity Transparency Comprehensiveness Responsibility Ethical practice Systematic approach | Use of mechanisms which facilitate researcher's enactment of principles of quality, throughout research process, for example: • Use of field diary to reflect on position and assumptions • Audit trail to record methodological decisions made, for reflection at interpretation stage • Ensuring researchers' comprehension of and engagement with their role in assuring quality |
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Recommending active methodological awareness over reliance on checklists of techniques |