Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?
Qualitative researchers often use other principles for judging the quality of their study than quantitative researchers. This inhibits a straightforward assessment of the quality and comparability of different types of studies, as well as decision-making about their usefulness for further research a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Quality & quantity 2012-10, Vol.46 (6), p.1727-1751 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1751 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1727 |
| container_title | Quality & quantity |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Poortman, C. L. Schildkamp, K. |
| description | Qualitative researchers often use other principles for judging the quality of their study than quantitative researchers. This inhibits a straightforward assessment of the quality and comparability of different types of studies, as well as decision-making about their usefulness for further research and practice. In this article, we question the use of alternative criteria, and argue for one coherent and inclusive framework of quality criteria for both qualitative and quantitative studies. We developed such a framework, based on a comparison and operationalization of different criteria, and the elaboration of procedures to realize them. Its usability is demonstrated by the application in a qualitative case study research and a mixed-methods study. This framework enhances advancing and judging the basic quality of any type of scientific research, promoting the assessment of the quality and hence usability of studies for further research or decision-making about practice. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1347784013</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1347784013</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-46a87debb005e8ccef6642915250ef6396a6f6c70eec11959cbab6a06510431c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_wFtBBC_Rmc1O0pykFL-g4EXPIZtmdct22ya7gv_eLFtEBPGUkDzvy8zD2DnCNQKom4iIgjggck1EnA7YCEkJrqY5HbIRgBCcUKljdhLjCiClcjVicla3PjS2rT78ZNfZumo_J7G1zdKGZZxUzf5xAIKP3gb3fnvKjkpbR3-2P8fs9f7uZf7IF88PT_PZgrucqOW5tFO19EUBQH7qnC-lzDONlBGku9DSylI6Bd47RE3aFbaQFiQh5AKdGLOroXcbNrvOx9asq-h8XdvGb7poUOQqbQgo_kdBkxSAukcvfqGrTZck1D0ldBqkx8YMB8qFTYzBl2YbqrUNnwkyvXQzSDdJuumlG0qZy32zjc7WZbCNq-J3MJNCgRYycdnAxfTVvPnwc4K_yr8AVOWPTA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1039195019</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Poortman, C. L. ; Schildkamp, K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Poortman, C. L. ; Schildkamp, K.</creatorcontrib><description>Qualitative researchers often use other principles for judging the quality of their study than quantitative researchers. This inhibits a straightforward assessment of the quality and comparability of different types of studies, as well as decision-making about their usefulness for further research and practice. In this article, we question the use of alternative criteria, and argue for one coherent and inclusive framework of quality criteria for both qualitative and quantitative studies. We developed such a framework, based on a comparison and operationalization of different criteria, and the elaboration of procedures to realize them. Its usability is demonstrated by the application in a qualitative case study research and a mixed-methods study. This framework enhances advancing and judging the basic quality of any type of scientific research, promoting the assessment of the quality and hence usability of studies for further research or decision-making about practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-5177</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7845</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5</identifier><identifier>CODEN: QQEJAV</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Audits ; Case studies ; Decision Making ; History, theory and methodology ; Internal validity ; Judgement ; Methodology ; Methodology of the Social Sciences ; Mixed methods research ; Operational Definitions ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative research ; Quality control ; Quality standards ; Research methodology ; Researchers ; Scientific research ; Self evaluation ; Social Sciences ; Sociology ; Traditions ; Usability ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Quality & quantity, 2012-10, Vol.46 (6), p.1727-1751</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-46a87debb005e8ccef6642915250ef6396a6f6c70eec11959cbab6a06510431c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-46a87debb005e8ccef6642915250ef6396a6f6c70eec11959cbab6a06510431c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27323,27903,27904,33753,33754,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26370936$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Poortman, C. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schildkamp, K.</creatorcontrib><title>Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?</title><title>Quality & quantity</title><addtitle>Qual Quant</addtitle><description>Qualitative researchers often use other principles for judging the quality of their study than quantitative researchers. This inhibits a straightforward assessment of the quality and comparability of different types of studies, as well as decision-making about their usefulness for further research and practice. In this article, we question the use of alternative criteria, and argue for one coherent and inclusive framework of quality criteria for both qualitative and quantitative studies. We developed such a framework, based on a comparison and operationalization of different criteria, and the elaboration of procedures to realize them. Its usability is demonstrated by the application in a qualitative case study research and a mixed-methods study. This framework enhances advancing and judging the basic quality of any type of scientific research, promoting the assessment of the quality and hence usability of studies for further research or decision-making about practice.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>History, theory and methodology</subject><subject>Internal validity</subject><subject>Judgement</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Methodology of the Social Sciences</subject><subject>Mixed methods research</subject><subject>Operational Definitions</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality standards</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Scientific research</subject><subject>Self evaluation</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Traditions</subject><subject>Usability</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0033-5177</issn><issn>1573-7845</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_wFtBBC_Rmc1O0pykFL-g4EXPIZtmdct22ya7gv_eLFtEBPGUkDzvy8zD2DnCNQKom4iIgjggck1EnA7YCEkJrqY5HbIRgBCcUKljdhLjCiClcjVicla3PjS2rT78ZNfZumo_J7G1zdKGZZxUzf5xAIKP3gb3fnvKjkpbR3-2P8fs9f7uZf7IF88PT_PZgrucqOW5tFO19EUBQH7qnC-lzDONlBGku9DSylI6Bd47RE3aFbaQFiQh5AKdGLOroXcbNrvOx9asq-h8XdvGb7poUOQqbQgo_kdBkxSAukcvfqGrTZck1D0ldBqkx8YMB8qFTYzBl2YbqrUNnwkyvXQzSDdJuumlG0qZy32zjc7WZbCNq-J3MJNCgRYycdnAxfTVvPnwc4K_yr8AVOWPTA</recordid><startdate>20121001</startdate><enddate>20121001</enddate><creator>Poortman, C. L.</creator><creator>Schildkamp, K.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121001</creationdate><title>Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?</title><author>Poortman, C. L. ; Schildkamp, K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-46a87debb005e8ccef6642915250ef6396a6f6c70eec11959cbab6a06510431c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>History, theory and methodology</topic><topic>Internal validity</topic><topic>Judgement</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Methodology of the Social Sciences</topic><topic>Mixed methods research</topic><topic>Operational Definitions</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality standards</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Scientific research</topic><topic>Self evaluation</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Traditions</topic><topic>Usability</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Poortman, C. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schildkamp, K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Quality & quantity</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Poortman, C. L.</au><au>Schildkamp, K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?</atitle><jtitle>Quality & quantity</jtitle><stitle>Qual Quant</stitle><date>2012-10-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1727</spage><epage>1751</epage><pages>1727-1751</pages><issn>0033-5177</issn><eissn>1573-7845</eissn><coden>QQEJAV</coden><abstract>Qualitative researchers often use other principles for judging the quality of their study than quantitative researchers. This inhibits a straightforward assessment of the quality and comparability of different types of studies, as well as decision-making about their usefulness for further research and practice. In this article, we question the use of alternative criteria, and argue for one coherent and inclusive framework of quality criteria for both qualitative and quantitative studies. We developed such a framework, based on a comparison and operationalization of different criteria, and the elaboration of procedures to realize them. Its usability is demonstrated by the application in a qualitative case study research and a mixed-methods study. This framework enhances advancing and judging the basic quality of any type of scientific research, promoting the assessment of the quality and hence usability of studies for further research or decision-making about practice.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5</doi><tpages>25</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0033-5177 |
| ispartof | Quality & quantity, 2012-10, Vol.46 (6), p.1727-1751 |
| issn | 0033-5177 1573-7845 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1347784013 |
| source | Sociological Abstracts; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Agreements Audits Case studies Decision Making History, theory and methodology Internal validity Judgement Methodology Methodology of the Social Sciences Mixed methods research Operational Definitions Qualitative analysis Qualitative research Quality control Quality standards Research methodology Researchers Scientific research Self evaluation Social Sciences Sociology Traditions Usability Validity |
| title | Alternative quality standards in qualitative research? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T14%3A33%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Alternative%20quality%20standards%20in%20qualitative%20research?&rft.jtitle=Quality%20&%20quantity&rft.au=Poortman,%20C.%20L.&rft.date=2012-10-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1727&rft.epage=1751&rft.pages=1727-1751&rft.issn=0033-5177&rft.eissn=1573-7845&rft.coden=QQEJAV&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1347784013%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1039195019&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |