Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Quality and Naturally Occurring Data

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Using Naturally Occurring Data in Qualitative Health Research

Abstract

Ensuring quality in qualitative research has been subject to considerable debate across time, and while the qualitative community has moved towards some consensus, some tension remains. The heterogeneity of the different methodological approaches has created some difficulties in creating universal criteria against what qualitative health research can be judged. However, there are some common discourses in the field, and some agreed markers (that may be applied in slightly different ways). In the chapter, we consider these broad quality indicators and discuss how they apply to research that uses naturally occurring data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barbour, R. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R., & Barbour, M. (2003). Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: Then need to develop a distinctive approach. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9(2), 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1–13. Retrieved January 1, 2012 from, http://www.ualberta.ca/iiqm/backissues/pdf/caellietal.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: Practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D., & Gantt, E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American Journal of Medical Quality, 23(5), 389–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. Hove: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, C. (2018). Generalization from single cases and the concept of double dialogicality. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 52, 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devers, K. (1999). How will we know “good” qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1153–1188.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (2010). What is adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and Health, 25(10), 1229–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M., de Marrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K., & Gergen, M. (1991). From theory to reflexivity in research practice. In F. Steier (Ed.), Method and reflexivity: Knowing as systemic social construction (pp. 76–95). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, D., Russell, C., & Phillips, L. (1997). Beyond textual perfection: Transcribers as vulnerable persons. Qualitative Health Research, 7(2), 294–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30(3), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, M., Amankwaa, L., Revell, M., & Mueller, D. (2016). Focus group data saturation: A new approach to data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21(11), 2121–2130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (2012). Positioning theory: moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 191–206). New York: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, I., & Biley, F. (2011). Being a qualitative researcher. Qualitative Health Research, 21(7), 968–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiyimba, N., & O’Reilly, M. (2016a). An exploration of the possibility for secondary traumatic stress amongst transcriptionists: A grounded theory approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(1), 92–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiyimba, N., & O’Reilly, M. (2016b). The risk of secondary traumatic stress in the qualitative transcription process: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 468–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J. (2003). Generalising from qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 263–286). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and word dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture and Society, 17(3), 26–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, D. (2001). On ‘reflexivity’ in qualitative research: Two readings and a third. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 26–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J., & Chmiel, M. (2013). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540–553). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Quality in qualitative health research. In C. Pope & N. Mays (Eds.), Qualitative research in health care (pp. 89–102). London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyrick, J. (2006). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5), 799–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situational analysis. Sociological Review, 31(2), 187–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal for Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced qualitative research: A guide to contemporary theoretical debates. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). Unsatisfactory saturation: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, M., Parker, N., & Hutchby, I. (2011). Ongoing processes of managing consent: The empirical ethics of using video-recording in clinical practice and research. Clinical Ethics, 6, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peräkylä, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occurring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 283–304). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenek, M., & Rudman, D. (2013). Bridging conceptions of quality in moments of qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12, 436–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, S., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical and methodological. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique. Overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory and Psychology, 20(6), 817–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigour in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 27–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (2008). Conversational realities revisited: Life, language, body and world. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, Prime Minister’s strategy Unit. www.strategy.gov.uk

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiles, W. (1993). Quality control in qualitative research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 593–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J., & Brinkmann, S. (2016). Beyond the “variables”: Developing metalanguage for psychology. In S. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology, Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 75–90). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social and Political Science, University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire, UK

    Nikki Kiyimba

  2. School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Jessica Nina Lester

  3. The Greenwood Institute of Child Health, University of Leicester, Leicester, Leicestershire, UK

    Michelle O’Reilly

Authors
  1. Nikki Kiyimba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Nina Lester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kiyimba, N., Lester, J.N., O’Reilly, M. (2019). Assessing Quality and Naturally Occurring Data. In: Using Naturally Occurring Data in Qualitative Health Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94839-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94839-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94838-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94839-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation