Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Evaluation Criteria

What constitutes a high-quality qualitative study? Evaluating qualitative studies requires criteria. The credibility of a study flows from evaluative judgments based on criteria of excellence and quality.

Diverse approaches to qualitative inquiry—phenomenology, ethnography, hermeneutics, critical theory, grounded theory, and feminist inquiry as examples—remind us that issues of quality and credibility intersect with varying theoretical orientations, the targeted audience for a study, and intended inquiry purposes. Different perspectives about things such as truth and the nature of reality constitute alternative epistemologies and ontologies. People conducting qualitative studies or reviewing findings through different paradigmatic lenses will render different judgments because they use different criteria of quality. Research directed to an audience of independent feminist scholars, for example, may be judged by substantially different criteria from research addressed to an audience of government economic policymakers. Exploratory research serves a different purpose and, therefore, must be judged by different criteria of quality compared with confirmatory research aimed at making a fundamental contribution to knowledge. In program evaluation, studies aimed at making improvements in implementation of a new program, what are called formative evaluations, are fundamentally different from studies aimed at rendering an overall judgment about the merit or worth of a program, what are called summative evaluations. Thus, it is important to acknowledge at the outset that particular philosophical underpinnings or theoretical orientations and special purposes for qualitative inquiry will generate different criteria for judging quality and credibility.

Five Distinct Sets of Criteria

To illustrate how different criteria lead to different judgments of quality, consider five contrasting sets of criteria for judging the quality of qualitative inquiry from different perspectives. Some of the criteria within these frameworks overlap, but even then subtle differences in nuances of meaning can be distinguished. The five contrasting sets of criteria flow from the following:

  • Traditional scientific research criteria
  • Constructivist criteria
  • Artistic criteria
  • Critical change criteria
  • Pragmatism

Traditional Scientific Research Criteria

Science has traditionally emphasized objectivity, so qualitative inquiry within this tradition emphasizes procedures for minimizing investigator bias and rigorous data collection procedures; for example, cross-validating sources during fieldwork. In analysis, it means using multiple coders to establish the validity and reliability of pattern and theme analysis. This tradition includes concepts such as validity, reliability, variables, hypothesis testing, causal explanation, and generalizability, especially in combination with quantitative data. Qualitative methods are used to describe and explain phenomena as accurately and completely as possible so that descriptions and explanations correspond as closely as possible to the way the world actually is. Government agencies supporting qualitative research often operate within this traditional scientific framework.

Constructivist Criteria

Social construction, constructivist, and interpretivist perspectives have generated new language and concepts to distinguish quality in qualitative research; for example, emphasizing trustworthiness rather than validity. Constructivists propose that naturalistic inquiry should be judged by dependability (a systematic process followed systematically) and authenticity (reflexive consciousness about one's own perspective and appreciation for the perspectives of others). Because they view human understandings of the world as socially, politically, and psychologically constructed, constructivists triangulate to capture and report multiple perspectives rather than to seek a singular truth. They are more interested in deeply understanding specific cases within a particular context than in making generalizations. Constructivists embrace subjectivity as inevitable, and their findings are explicitly informed by attention to praxis and reflexivity.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution