Confusing Claims for Data: A Critique of Common Practices for Presenting Qualitative Research on Learning

219 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Beyond a coefficient: an interactive process for achieving inter-rater consistency in qualitative coding (2020, methodology): “Some advocate for abandoning this statistical approach to reliability in interpretivist work in favor of other guidelines, such as trustworthiness as it is demonstrated through credibility, transferability, and dependability (Hammer and Berland, 2014; Hayes and Krippendorff, 2007; Hill et al., 2005;”
Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research (2019, background): “IRR can reveal something about the nature of the data itself: how easy or challenging was it to synthesize and how easy or hard it was to attach meaning to units of analysis [43].”
Guidelines for Establishing Reliability When Coding Narrative Data (2015, background): “Although this approach has long been accepted in mainstream psychological research, it has been heavily criticized by researchers adopting qualitative methodologies, which tend to be situated within a constructivist paradigm (Hammer & Berland, 2014).”