Advertisement

Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?

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.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Abbreviations

AvSE schools:

Average Self-Evaluation schools

Cito:

The Dutch Testing and Measurement Institute

CSS:

Contact summary sheet

LoSE schools:

Low Self-Evaluation schools

LVS:

Pupil monitoring system

HiSE schools:

High Self-Evaluation schools

SES:

Socio economic status

SVET:

Senior secondary vocational education

WPL:

Workplace learning component

References

  1. Akkerman S.: Strangers in Dialogue. Academic Collaboration Across Organizational Boundaries. Utrecht University, Utrecht (2006)

  2. Akkerman S., Admiraal W., Brekelmans M., Oost H.: Auditing quality of social scientific research. Qual. Quant. 42, 257–274 (2008)

  3. Berings, M.G.M.C., Doornbos, A.J.: Exploring instruments mapping workplace learning processes. In: Proceedings book vi: Theme 8: Learning and learners at work. Work and lifelong learning in different contexts. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference of researching work and learning (pp. 48–58). University of Tampere, Tampere (2003)

  4. Burke Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33(7), 14–26 (2004)

  5. Den Boer P.R., Jellema M.: Duaal of niet duaal, is dat de kwestie? [dualisation of vet or no dualisation of vet, is that the question?]. Stoas Onderzoek, Wageningen (2002)

  6. Eggens, T.J.H.M., Sanders, P.F. (eds.): Psychometrie in de praktijk [Psychometrics in practice]. CITO, Arnhem (1993)

  7. Evers, A., van Vliet-Mulder, J.C., Resing, W.C.M., Starren, J.C.M.G., Alphen De Veer, R.J. van, van Boxtel, H.: COTAN testboek voor het onderwijs [COTAN test book for education]. NDC-Boom, Amsterdam (2002)

  8. Guba E., Lincoln Y.: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 105–177. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1994)

  9. Haase J.E., Myers S.T.: Reconciling paradigm assumptions of qualitative and quantitative research. West. J. Nurs. Res. 10, 128–137 (1988)

  10. Hall J., Stevens P.: Rigor in feminist research. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 13(3), 16–29 (1991)

  11. Hendriks M., Doolaard S., Bosker R.J.: Using school effectiveness as a knowledge base for self-evaluation in Dutch schools: the ZEBO-project. In: Visscher, A.J., Coe , R. (eds) School Improvement Through Performance Feedback, pp. 115–142. Swets & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse (2002)

  12. Hendriks M., Bosker R.: ZEBO instrument voor zelfevaluatie in het basisonderwijs. Handleiding bij een geautomatiseerd hulpmiddel voor kwaliteitszorg in basisscholen. Twente University Press, Enschede (2003)

  13. de Heus P., van der Leeden R., Gazendam B.: Technieken voor niet-experimenteel onderzoek in de sociale Wetenschappen [Applied data-analysis. Methods for non-experimental research in social sciences]. Elsevier Bedrijfsinformatie bv, ’s-Gravenhage (1995)

  14. Holloway I.: Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford (1997)

  15. Illeris K.: The Three Dimensions of Learning. Roskilde University Press, Copenhagen (2002)

  16. Jonker, N.: Job performance and career prospects of auditors. Thela Thesis, Amsterdam (2001)

  17. King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S.: Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)

  18. Krathwohl D.R.: Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach. Longman, New York (1998)

  19. Lincoln Y., Guba E.: Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, New York (1985)

  20. Litosseliti L.: Using Focus Groups in Research. Continuum, London (2003)

  21. Long T., Johnson M.: Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin. Eff. Nurs. 4, 30–37 (2000)

  22. : Methoden en techieken van psychologisch onderzoek [Methods of Psychological Research]. Boom Meppel, Amsterdam (1989)

  23. Meijer P.C., Verloop N., Beijaard D.: Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: an attempt to increase internal validity. Qual. Quant. 36(2), 145–167 (2002)

  24. Mertens D.M.: Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)

  25. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks (1994)

  26. Morgan D.L.: Focus groups. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 22, 129–152 (1996)

  27. Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L.: Taking the “Q” out of research: teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Qual. Quant. 39(3), 267–296 (2005)

  28. Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L.: Validity and qualitative research: an oxymoron?. Qual. Quant. 41(2), 233–249 (2007)

  29. Poortman C.L.: Workplace Learning Processes in Senior Secondary Vocational Education and Training. University of Twente, Enschede (2007)

  30. Riege A.M.: Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qual. Market Res. Int. J. 6(2), 75–86 (2003)

  31. Rossi P.H., Freeman H.E., Lipsey M.W.: Evaluation. A Systematic Approach. SAGE Publications, Thousands Oaks (1999)

  32. Sale J.E.M., Lohfeld L.H., Brazil K.: Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual. Quant. 36, 42–53 (2002)

  33. Schildkamp K.: The Utilisation of a Self-Evaluation Instrument for Primary Education. University of Twente, Enschede (2007)

  34. Silverman D.: Analyzing talk and text. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln , Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 821–834. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks (2000)

  35. Stake R.E.: Case studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 435–454. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2000)

  36. Steckler A., McLeroy K.R., Goodman R.M., Bird S.T., McCormick L.: Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Educ. Q. 19(1), 1–8 (1992)

  37. Swanborn P.G.: A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Qual. Quant. 30, 19–35 (1996)

  38. Trochim, W.M.K.: Qualitative validity. Retrieved Oct 2008, from, http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php 2006

  39. Visscher A.J.: A framework for studying school performance feedback systems. In: Visscher, A.J., Coe, R. (eds) School Improvement Through Performance Feedback, pp. 41–72. Swets & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse (2002)

  40. Yin R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications, Beverly Hills (1984)

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to K. Schildkamp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poortman, C.L., Schildkamp, K. Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?. Qual Quant 46, 1727–1751 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Quantitative-qualitative debate
  • Quality criteria
  • Mixed-methodology
  • Case studies