Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?

By R. Barbour. British medical journal, 2001

2,866 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b3318d66069cc164ac085d15dc25cafac82c9d6b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

In General Health Professions

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate (2018, background): “Drawing from Barbour (2001), we acknowledge that in the context of an in-depth cross-case analysis where complex processes and interactions are coded by two researchers, “concordance between researchers is not really important; what is ultimately of value is the content of disagreements and the…”
Quality in Qualitative Studies: The Case of Validity, Reliability and Generalizability (2011, background): “See Barbour (2001) and Chapple and Rogers (1998) on what these problems are.”
Analysing and presenting qualitative data (2008, background): “There is, therefore, a debate as to whether qualitative researchers should have their analyses verified or validated by a third party.(13,14) It has been argued that this process can make the analysis more rigorous and reduce the element bias.”
Member Checking: Can Benefits Be Gained Similar to Group Therapy? (2012, background): “…qualitative inquiry methodology and is defined as a quality control process by which a researcher seeks to improve the accuracy, credibility and validity of what has been recorded during a research interview (Barbour, 2001; Byrne, 2001; Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Doyle, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).”
Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. (2003, methodology): “wagging the dog (qualitative research) (Barbour, 2001).”
Feedback from research participants: are member checks useful in qualitative research? (2017, background): “…use of member checks without considerable thought as to why member checks were being used, what was expected from participants in terms of their involvement in research and avoiding harm to participants during member check procedures (Barbour 2001; Goldblatt et al. 2011; Hagens et al. 2009).”
An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis (2014, methodology): “Discrepancies that emerged from this multiple coding strategy gave valuable insights for refining the coding scheme and were resolved by discussion [43].”
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations (2014, positive): “16,17 Although there is much debate about standards for methodological rigor in qualitative research, 13,14,18–20 there is widespread agreement about the need for clear and complete reporting.”
Police Officers' and Legal Professionals' Perceptions Regarding How Children Are, and Should Be, Questioned About Repeated Abuse (2006, methodology): “This collaborative analysis enabled a coding scheme to be developed that appropriately encapsulated the content of all interviews (Barbour, 2001).”