Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies.

By A. Madill, A. Jordan, Caroline Shirley. British Journal of Psychology, 2000

1,295 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12a3fbc12f3ed13afa1d46a31f1d9304e17b9c42

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

1. A. Tweed
2. Kathy Charmaz
3. Joel Olson
4. Daniel Sousa
5. T. Jefferson
6. W. Hollway
7. K. Walters
8. Chad McAllister

Citations in the corpus

• Validation in Qualitative Research: General Aspects and Specificities of the Descriptive Phenomenological Method (2014, methodology): “In this way, the first level of adequacy, as has been abundantly described, has to do with the coherence between the paradigm, methodology and validation processes, and the researcher must work hard to achieve this integration (Madill et al. 2000, p. 17).”
• Understanding optimal human functioning – The ‘call for qual’ in exploring human flourishing and well-being (2017, background): “…including limiting theory development, critical reflection and perpetuating elitist circles of scientists as well as feminist critiques of the ‘male norm’ and illusions of objectivity (e.g. the ‘God’s eye view’; Willig, 2013, p. 7; see Madill et al., 2000, for a review on objectivity in research).”
• “Doing” Gardening and “Being” at the Allotment Site: Exploring the Benefits of Allotment Gardening for Stress Reduction and Healthy Aging (2013, positive): “This research employs a critical realist position (Madill et al., 2000), with the findings being driven by the participants’ accounts, which are viewed as reflections of their experiences.”
• The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory (2006, neutral): “These came from the disciplines of education (Jones, 2002; Jones & Hill, 2003), psychology (Corbet-Owen & Kruger, 2001; Dodson & Dickert, 2004; Madill, Jordan, & Shirley, 2000; Stratton, 1997), occupational and environmental medicine (Gustafsson, Dellve, Edlund, & Hagberg, 2003), and nursing…”
• Applying Constant Comparative Method with Multiple Investigators and Inter-Coder Reliability (2016, background): “However, opposing views in critical realism (Madill et al., 2000) contend it is the nature of the human brain to filter new data through its past experiences, beliefs, and expectations.”
• Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines (2020, background): “Some researchers strongly object to the inclusion of ICR in qualitative analysis because they see it as an unwarranted attempt to import standards derived for positivist research (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Madill et al., 2000).”
• Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research (2012, background): “Silverman summarizes the differences in the following way: ‘Social life, therefore, has an internal logic which must be understood by the sociologist; the natural scientist imposes an external logic on his data.’”
• Glaser or Strauss? Considerations for selecting a grounded theory study (2016, neutral): “The differences outlined in this article remain the focus of many grounded theorists as they defend the philosophical bases of, and advocate for, the utility of either approach (Charmaz, 2014; Madill et al., 2000).”
• The Grounded Theory Method: Application of a Variant of Its Procedure of Constant Comparative Analysis to Psychotherapy Research (2006, background): “Again, I am among those who are attempting to work out an epistemological position between these two extremes by encouraging the communication of prejudices of which we are aware (cf. Charmaz, 1995; Kvale, 2001; Madill et al., 2000).”
• Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology (2017, background): “…to conclude that it is a myth (Morse, 1997), a misconception (Cook, 2012), inappropriate for interpretive qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2016; Madill et al., 2000), not worth pursing (Braun & Clarke, 2013), and a flimsily retrofitted procedure in qualitative clothes to be avoided (Eakin,…”