Scinovex
review Open AccessTop 1% cited

Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?

BMJ · 2001 · Vol. 322(7294) · pp. 1115–1117
Rosaline S. Barbour

Abstract

Checklists can be useful improving qualitative research methods, but overzealous and uncritical use can be counterproductive Reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) is overly prescriptive and results in “the tail wagging the dog” None of these “technical fixes” in itself confers rigour; they can strengthen the rigour of qualitative research only if embedded in a broader understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis Otherwise we risk compromising the unique contribution that systematic qualitative research can make to health services research.

Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceRigourQualitative researchEpistemologyEngineering ethicsManagement scienceSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer sciencePhilosophy

MeSH terms

Health Services ResearchHumansResearch DesignSampling StudiesReproducibility of Results
Citations
2,586
FWCI
110.42
field-weighted impact
References
31
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.

Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? · Scinovex