Qualitative Research and the Question of Rigor

By D. Davies, J. Dodd. Qualitative Health Research, 2002

675 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f7542b39ac7301c128f788cb255744701bbb0106

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 Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Reliability and Validity of Qualitative and Operational Research Paradigm (2008, background): “In searching for the meaning of rigor in research, Davies and Dodd (2002) find that the term rigor in research appears in reference to the discussion about reliability and validity.”
Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences (2013, background): “…researchers have even argued that determining the quality of qualitative studies via quantitative concepts or measures such as reliability and validity is not only irrelevant but also misleading (Creswell, 2009, p. 190; Davies & Dodd, 2002, p. 280; Steinke, 2004, p. 186; Stenbacka, 2001, p. 551).”
A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews (2015, neutral): “For our own purposes, we focused on four criteria that have been proposed to reach the goal of rigor; namely, internal validity, objectivity, external validity, and reproducibility (Davies & Dodd, 2002; Morse et al., 2002; Tobin & Begley, 2004).”
Rigour and grounded theory research. (2003, methodology): “The importance of this article can be understood by locating it within the body of work that addresses the practical application of standards of rigour in qualitative research practice (Rose & Webb 1998, Maggs-Rapport 2001, Whittemore et al. 2001, Davies & Dodds 2002 ).”
Validity in Qualitative Evaluation (2015, background): “Davies and Dodd (2002) argue that because of this, the quest for greater rigor cannot be separated from the interaction with the research subject and the ethics that the researcher should take into account (see, e.”
Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies, Reconceptualization, and Recommendations (2017, methodology): “Rigor has also been used to express attributes related to the qualitative research process.(12,13) Per Morse et al(4) (2002), without rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction, and loses its use.”
Child removal as the gateway to further adversity: Birth mother accounts of the immediate and enduring collateral consequences of child removal (2020, methodology): “Data collection and analysis adhered to recognised standards for robust qualitative research (Daly et al., 2007; Davies and Dodd, 2002; Hannes, 2011).”
Quality in Qualitative Studies: The Case of Validity, Reliability and Generalizability (2011, background): “To name just four of these parties, these would be Davies and Dodd (2002), Golafshani (2003), Kvale (1995), and Whittermore, Chase and Mandle (2001).”
Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research (2003, neutral): “In searching for the meaning of rigor in research, Davies and Dodd (2002) find that the term rigor in research appears in reference to the discussion about reliability and validity.”
Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory (2007, background): “For additional reading on issues of trustworthiness, see, for example, Angen (2000), Davies and Dodd (2002), Guba (1981), Pyett (2003), and Whittemore, Chase, and Mandle (2001).”
Rigor in Qualitative Social Work Research: A Review of Strategies Used in Published Articles (2011, background): “…be called, how and when they should be implemented, and whether they can be used to evaluate the quality of the work (Caelli, Ray, & Mill, 2003; davies & dodd, 2002; emden & sandelowski, 1998, 1999; Kincheloe, 2001; Marshall, 1989; Rolfe, 2004, seale, 1999, 2002; whittemore, Chase, & Mandle,…”