Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing
By I. Korstjens, Albine Moser. European Journal of General Practice, 2017
2,715 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Abstract In the course of our supervisory work over the years we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The first article provides an introduction to this series. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs. The third article focused on sampling, data collection and analysis. This fourth article addresses FAQs about trustworthiness and publishing. Quality criteria for all qualitative research are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Reflexivity is an integral part of ensuring the transparency and quality of qualitative research. Writing a qualitative research article reflects the iterative nature of the qualitative research process: data analysis continues while writing. A qualitative research article is mostly narrative and tends to be longer than a quantitative paper, and sometimes requires a different structure. Editors essentially use the criteria: is it new, is it true, is it relevant? An effective cover letter enhances confidence in the newness, trueness and relevance, and explains why your study required a qualitative design. It provides information about the way you applied quality criteria or a checklist, and you can attach the checklist to the manuscript.
Subfields: General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bec062823b4af669a9bbc5bd1889e70f4eea9283
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Health Professions
In Sociology and Political Science
- Mark Hadfield
- Adam de Eyto
- M. Hutchings
- C. Maher
- Albine Moser
- I. Korstjens
- George Siemens
- Lina Markauskaite
Citations in the corpus
- Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis (2018, positive): “Adherence to this framework by adopting strategies, such as those outlined, to address the individual criteria supports a rigorous research process (Hollo-way, 2008; Korstjens & Moser, 2017; Shenton, 2004).”
- Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI? (2022, positive): “To ensure trustworthiness (Korstjens & Moser, 2018), we made our perspectives explicit and the methodological design transparent.”
- Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis (2017, background): “focus on trustworthiness and publishing qualitative research [13].”