Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitätskriterien in der empirischen Sozialforschung

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften

  • 54k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel vermittelt folgende Lernziele: Wissenschaft von Nicht-Wissenschaft, Pseudo- und Parawissenschaft abgrenzen können. Wissen, wozu Kriterien der wissenschaftlichen Qualität in der empirischen Sozialforschung dienen und wie man sie strukturieren kann. Die wichtigsten Gütekriterien der quantitativen Sozialforschung erläutern können. Die wichtigsten Gütekriterien der qualitativen Sozialforschung darstellen können. Die wichtigsten Gütekriterien der Mixed-Methods-Sozialforschung kennen.

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 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Ambach, W. (2012). Experimentelle Psychophysiologie in Grenzgebieten. Würzburg: Ergon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–790.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 201–212.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (Eds.). (2014). Opening science. The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J., Lienert, G. A. & Boehnke, K. (2008). Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik (3. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, F., & Reichertz, J. (2001). Standards of social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2, Art. 24. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/919/2008

  • Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297–311.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, J. C. (2012). First sight: ESP and parapsychology in everyday life. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational research (pp. 223–326). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. (2020). Reporting quantitative research in psychology: How to meet APA style journal article reporting standards (2nd ed.). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Emden, C., & Sandelowski, M. (1998). The good, the bad and the relative, part one: Conceptions of goodness in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 4, 206–212.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2008). Managing the quality of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlbach, H., & Robinson, C. D. (2021). From old school to open science: The implications of new research norms for educational psychology and beyond. Educational Psychologist, 56, 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, W. & Kotte, W. (2007). Handbuch Qualität: Grundlagen und Elemente des Qualitätsmanagements: Systeme – Perspektiven (5. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: Vieweg & Teubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girden, E. R., & Kabacoff, R. (2010). Evaluating research articles from start to finish. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunenberg, H. (2007). Empirische Befunde zur Qualität qualitativer Sozialforschung. Resultate einer Analyse von Zeitschriftenartikeln. In U. Kuckartz, H. Grunenberg & T. Dresing (Hrsg.), Qualitative Datenanalyse: computergestützt (S. 210–226). VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldeman, D. C. (1999). The pseudo-science of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Angles: The Policy Journal for Lesbian and Gay Strategic Studies, 4, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldeman, D. C. (2002). Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 260–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannes, K. (2011). Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In J. Noyes, A. Booth, K. Hannes, A. Harden, J. Harris, S. Lewin, & C. Lockwood (Eds.), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance

  • Hellferich, C. (2005). Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews (2. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Sender, K., & Stevenson Won, A. (2021). Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication, 71, 855–874. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ickinger, J. (2006). Methodisches Vorgehen bei UFO-Falluntersuchungen. Zeitschrift für Anomalistik, 6, 116–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilg, S. & Boothe, B. (2010). Qualitative Forschung im psychologischen Feld: Was ist eine gute Publikation? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11, Art. 25. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1371/2975

  • Jennett, C., Furniss, D. J., Iacovides, I., Wiseman, S., Gould, S. J. J., & Cox, A. L. (2014). Exploring citizen psych-science and the motivations of errordiary volunteers. Human Computation, 1, 201–220. https://doi.org/10.15346/hc.v1i2.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, D. K., & Casadevall-Keller, M. L. (2010). The Tao of research: A path to validity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamnek, S. & Krell, C. (2016). Qualitative Sozialforschung: Lehrbuch. Mit Online-Materialien (6. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J., & Westmorland, M. (2007). Critical Review Form – Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0). Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://www.unisa.edu.au/contentassets/72bf75606a2b4abcaf7f17404af374ad/7b-mcmasters_qualreview_version2-01.pdf

  • Levitt, H. M. (2020). Reporting qualitative research in psychology: How to meet APA style journal article reporting standards (rev. ed.). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology: Concluding thoughts and constructive remedies. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Ruscio, J., & Lynn, S. J. (Eds.). (2008). Navigating the mindfield: A user’s guide to distinguishing science from pseudoscience in mental health. Amherst: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (Eds.). (2003). Turning points in qualitative research: Rifts, ruptures and revolutions in interpretive inquiry. Walnut Creek: Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358, 483–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. & Reiter, S. (2004). Impfgegner und Impfskeptiker. Geschichte, Hintergründe, Thesen, Umgang. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 47, 1182–1188.

    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, 799–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyes, J., Popay, J., Pearson, A., Hannes, K., & Booth, A. (2008). Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook

  • O’Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531–555). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13, 92–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olatunji, B. O., Parker, L. M., & Lohr, J. M. (2005). Pseudoscience in contemporary psychology: Professional issues and implications. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4, 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, I. (2004). Criteria for qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmstorf, S. (2007). Alles nur Klimahysterie? Universitas, 9, 895–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, C. S. (2011). Criticisms of and an alternative to the Shadish, Cook, and Campbell validity typology. Theory and Practice, 130, 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2000). Zur Gültigkeit von Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1, Art. 32. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1101/2427

  • Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6, 59–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger, F. J., Dickson, W. J., & Wright, H. A. (1939). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Havard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sales, B. D., & Folkman, S. (Eds.). (2000). Ethics in research with human participants. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schou, L., Høstrup, H., Lyngsø, E. E., Larsen, S., & Poulsen, I. (2012). Validation of a new assessment tool for qualitative research articles. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68, 2086–2094.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20140305122816/http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/a_quality_framework_tcm6-38740.pdf

  • Steinke, I. (1999). Kriterien qualitativer Forschung. München: Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinke, I. (2009). Die Güte qualitativer Marktforschung. In R. Buber & H. Holzmüller (Hrsg.), Qualitative Marktforschung. Konzepte – Methoden – Analysen (2. Aufl., S. 261–289). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 471–485.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight „big-tent“ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16, 837–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truzzi, M. (1996). Pseudoscience. In G. Stein (Ed.), The encyclopedia of the paranormal (pp. 560–575). Amherst: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A., & Duvall, R. (2008). Sovereignty and the UFO. Political Theory, 36, 607–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermann, R. (2000). Wissenschaftstheorie und Experimentalmethodik: Ein Lehrbuch zur Psychologischen Methodenlehre. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, E. (2001). Die Wahrnehmung der Struktur der deutschsprachigen UFO-Szene: Eine multidimensionale Skalierung von Expertenurteilen. Zeitschrift für Anomalistik, 1, 75–101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Deutschland

    Nicola Döring

Authors
  1. Nicola Döring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Döring .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Döring, N. (2023). Qualitätskriterien in der empirischen Sozialforschung. In: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-64761-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-64762-2

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation