Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology

By Lucy Yardley. 2007

966 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/078a0e80453a6cc9f9ff88af1352ef81a32d4dec

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Clíodhna O’Connor
2. R. Maunder
3. H. Joffe
4. K. Hefferon
5. L. Waters
6. M. Cunliffe
7. B. Love
8. A. Ashfield

Citations in the corpus

• Understanding optimal human functioning – The ‘call for qual’ in exploring human flourishing and well-being (2017, background): “…not reliability but transparency) and this is further explored in yardley’s piece in this issue, (please also see Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999; yardley, 2000, 2015). ultimately, qualitative research gives a human perspective to an inherently human discipline (Langdridge, 2004; Willig, 2013),…”
• Listening to student voices: student researchers exploring undergraduate experiences of university transition (2012, methodology): “Combining focus groups and interviews in the same study was a form of mixed-method triangulation— ensuring that a comprehensive approach was taken to researching the issue and giving improved confidence in the validity of data (Yardley 2008).”
• Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines (2020, background): “Within this epistemological framework, researcher reflexivity and active personal engagement with the data are resources, not “noise” to be minimized (Yardley, 2008).”
• One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? (2020, unknown): “It is important that qualitative research, and different approaches to qualitative research, are evaluated on their own terms (Madill et al., 2000; Sparkes and Smith 2009; Yardley 2015).”
• Demonstrating the validity of qualitative research (2017, background): “Procedures for enhancing, evaluating, and demonstrating the quality of qualitative research can be broadly grouped into four key dimensions: sensitivity to context; commitment and rigor; transparency and coherence; and impact and importance (Yardley, 2000, 2008).”
• Why do youth participate in climate activism? A mixed-methods investigation of the #FridaysForFuture climate protests. (2021, background): “The position of the joint first two authors as young Norwegian researchers supportive of the cause can be seen as a source of bias (Yardley, 2015), but also as a strength, as it allowed for a broader interpretation of the material, enhancing our capability to see and incorporate variability in the…”
• Exploring analytical trustworthiness and the process of reaching consensus in interpretative phenomenological analysis: lost in transcription (2015, background): “With this in mind, Yardley (2008) and Rolfe (2006) both emphasise the importance of the following principles when conducting high-quality qualitative work: sensitivity to context; commitment and rigour; transparency and coherence; impact and importance.”
• Should Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) be Used With Focus Groups? Navigating the Bumpy Road of “Iterative Loops,” Idiographic Journeys, and “Phenomenological Bridges” (2020, background): “Step 8: Conduct Credibility Checks The research followed suggestions by Neale et al. (2013), Smith (2011), and Yardley (2008) to ensure the process was robust and followed high-quality standards.”