Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action

By A. Sparkes, Brett W. Smith. 2009

604 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Statement of problem A variety of conceptions of qualitative research exist. This leads to a situation in which there are competing claims as to what counts as good-quality work. These competing claims revolve around the issue of criteria and how they are used to pass judgment on qualitative research. Those involved in sport and exercise sciences need to reflect on this issue with a view to generating further dialogue and a greater understanding of difference within the research community. Method Two ideal types of researcher, one a criteriologist the other a relativist, are constructed to illustrate how each might judge qualitative studies of different kinds. Results A comparison of the ways in which the criteriologist and the relativist draw on different assumptions to judge qualitative studies illustrates the constraining nature of the former and the expansive possibilities of the latter. Conclusions Criteria should be viewed as lists of characterizing traits that are open to reinterpretation as times, conditions, and purposes change. Researchers need to adopt the role of connoisseur in order to pass judgment on different kinds of study in a fair and ethical manner.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bbcfd94bc00ec146b8f22a35e8f9ac5f133636e6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Sporting Spinal Cord Injuries, Social Relations, and Rehabilitation Narratives: An Ethnographic Creative Non-Fiction of Becoming Disabled Through Sport (2013, background): “…(i.e. rugby football union, surfing, horse riding), over 70 hours of observing sporting spinal cord injured men in rehabilitation, and for ethical reasons and to enhance the credibility of results (Sparkes & Smith, 2009; Tracey, 2010) dialogic exchanges (i.e. ‘member checking’) with these men.”
‘It was Hard, But it was Good’: a qualitative exploration of stress-related growth in Division I intercollegiate athletes (2012, methodology): “Trustworthiness techniques were selected relative to the purpose of the study (Sparkes and Smith 2009).”
Narrative inquiry: ongoing conversations and questions for sport and exercise psychology research (2010, background): “However, because the interests, interview purposes, framework, or background knowledge held by a sport or exercise psychologist deeply influences how we see the goals of research, how research should be undertaken, and, how we should judge research quality, and since there is no way we can cut ourse”
Supporting adolescent athletes' dual careers: The role of an athlete's social support network (2018, background): “It has been suggested that, given the range of paradigmatic assumptions, study methodologies, and data collection and analysis methods used within qualitative research, a relativist rather than criterion approach to judging the quality of qualitative research is appropriate (Sparkes & Smith, 2009).”
Defining and characterizing team resilience in elite sport (2013, background): “…Quality and Rigor 18 Although some scholars have opposed the development of unvarying universal 19 standards for qualitative research (cf. Sparkes & Smith, 2009), it is important to assess the 20 quality of a study using evaluative criteria most appropriate for the research question and…”
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? (2020, neutral): “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).”
Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology (2017, methodology): “This refers to the belief that criteria for judging qualitative research needs to be, and can be, predetermined, permanent and applied to any form of inquiry regardless of its intents and purposes (Burke, 2016; Schinke et al., 2013; Sparkes & Smith, 2009, 2014).”
Thinking through and designing qualitative research studies: a focused mapping review of 30 years of qualitative research in sport psychology (2019, background): “For further discussion of these topics, see Eakin and Mykhalovskiy (2003), Smith and McGannon (2018), Sparkes (1998), and Sparkes and Smith (2009).”
Living, resisting, and playing the part of athlete: Narrative tensions in elite sport (2013, methodology): “In keeping with this position, we advocate the ‘relativist’ position described by Sparkes and Smith (2009) as the most suitable way to judge our research.”
Parental stressors in professional youth football academies: a qualitative investigation of specialising stage parents (2010, background): “Although the processes of reliability and validity in qualitative research remain contentious areas of debate (Patton 2002, Sparkes and Smith 2009), we supported the importance of optimising these elements of our data analysis, particularly given our research goal of developing a credible and…”
Qualitative Research in Sport Psychology Journals: The Next Decade 2000-2009 and Beyond (2012, background): “In this regard, Sparkes and Smith (2009), suggest that sport psychologists should aspire to become connoisseurs of research which involves developing the art of appreciation.”
Towards a conceptual understanding of acute cultural adaptation: a preliminary examination of ACA in female swimming (2012, background): “According to Sparkes and Smith ( 2009 ), non-foundational research approaches embrace questions of an epistemological nature in judging the processes and outcomes of research rather than relying solely on the application of methods.”
A Qualitative Study of Performance Leadership and Management in Elite Sport (2011, background): “As part of this process a critical friend questioned any interpretations made at each stage of the data analysis ( Faulkner & Sparkes, 1999 ; Holt & Sparkes, 2001 ; Sparkes & Partington, 2003 ), particularly following any deductive reasoning that occurred.”
Qualitative research in six sport and exercise psychology journals between 2010 and 2017: An updated and expanded review of trends and interpretations (2019, methodology): “…those codes, we recorded additional rigour/trustworthiness techniques noted in articles (e.g. critical friends, researcher reflexivity/bracketing) to account for contemporary qualitative research developments regarding rigour (e.g. Smith & McGannon, 2018; Sparkes & Smith, 2009; Tracy, 2010).”
Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG) (2024, background): “35 Unthinking compliance with the RTARG will not necessarily improve reporting quality, because knowing practice is key.”
The search for freedom in extreme sports : a phenomenological exploration (2013, background): “However, others have critiqued the role of blindly following such criteria as following such criteria does not guarantee good quality research (Sparkes & Smith 2009).”