How do we recognise good research?

Psychologist

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 24-27

  Salmon, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038205482     PISSN: 09528229     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Barbour, R. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115-1117.
2. Byrne, A., Morton, J. & Salmon, P. (2001). Defending against patients' suffering: A qualitative analysis of nurses' responses to children's postoperative pain. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 50, 69-76.
3. Chapple, A. & Rogers, A. (1998). Explicit guidelines for qualitative research: A step in the right direction, a defence of the 'soft' option, or a form of sociological imperialism? Family Practice, 15, 556-561.
4. Corbin, J.M. (1998). Alternative interpretations:Valid or not? Theory and Psychology, 8, 121-128.
5. Cronbach, L. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
6. Devers, K.J. (1999). How will we know 'good' qualitative research when we see it! Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research, 34, 1153-1188.
7. Edwards, A.G., Russell, L.T. & Stott, N.C.H. (1998). Signal versus noise in the evidence base for medicine: An alternative to hierarchies of evidence? Family Practice, 15, 319-322.
8. 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, 213-229.
9. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: Verso.
10. Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. London:Verso/NLB.
11. Gillett, G. (1995).The philosophical foundations of qualitative psychology. The Psychologist 8, 111-114.
12. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln,Y.S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic enquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 233-252.
13. Holmberg, L., Baum, M. & Adami, H.O. (1999). On the scientific inference from clinical trials. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5, 157-162.
14. Macnaughton, R.J. (1996). Numbers, scales, and qualitative research. The Lancet, 347, 1099-1100.
15. Mays, N. & Pope, C. (1995). Rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Journal 311, 109-112.
16. Morgan, M. (1996). Qualitative research:A package deal? The Psychologist 9, 31-32.
17. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
18. Reicher, S. (2000). Against methodolatry: Some comments on Elliott, Fischer, and Rennie. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 1-6.
19. Rennie, D.L. ( 1998). Grounded theory methodology: The pressing need for a coherent logic of justification. Theory and Psychology, 8, 101-119.
20. Rennie, D.L. (2000). Grounded theory methodology as methodological hermeneutics. Theory and Psychology, 10, 481-502.
21. Robinson, D.N. (2000). Paradigms and 'the Myth of Framework': how science progresses. Theory and Psychology, 10, 39-47.
22. Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
23. Sohn, D. (1998). Statistical significance and replicability: Why the former does not presage the latter. Theory and Psychology, 8, 291-311.
24. Stiles, W.B. (1993). Quality control in qualitative research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 593-618.
25. Turpin, G., Barley, V., Beail, N., Scaife, J., Slade, P., Smith, J.A. et al. (1997). Standards for research projects and theses involving qualitative methods: Suggested guidelines for trainees and courses. Clinical Psychology Forum, 108, 3-7.
26. Yardley, L. (1997). Material discourses of health and illness. Routledge, London.