Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

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

  • 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)

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of C&O, University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral Science, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    C. L. Poortman & K. Schildkamp

Authors
  1. C. L. Poortman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Schildkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation