Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives?

Environmental Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 59-91

  Reid, Alan ^a   Gough, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BATH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 15944407037     PISSN: 13504622     EISSN: 14695871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/135046200110494     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. ADLER, J., 1993a. A child's garden of misinformation. Consumer's Research, 76(September): 11–16.
2. ADLER, J., 1993b. The greening of America's youth. Wall Street Journal, 14 April: A14
3. ALTHEIDE, D., and JOHNSON, J., 1994. “ Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., London: Sage.
4. AMBERT, A., ADLER, P. A., ADLER, P., and DETZNER, D., 1995. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4): 879–893.
5. APPLETON, J., 1995. Analysing qualitative interview data: addressing issues of validity and reliability. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(5): 993–997.
6. ATKINSON, P., 1995. Some perils of paradigms. Qualitative Health Research, 5(1): 117–124.
7. AVERY, R., and MCCAIN, T., Evaluating qualitative research: recognising our personal judgements. paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. May24-28, San Francisco, CA.
8. Avis, M., 1995. Valid arguments: a consideration of the concept of validity in establishing the credibility of research findings. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(6): 1203–1209.
9. BAILEY, P., 1996. Assuring quality in narrative analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 18(2): 186–194.
10. BAILEY, P., 1997. Finding your way around qualitative methods in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(1): 18–22.
11. BAILEY, C., WHITE, C., and PAIN, R., 1999a. Evaluating qualitative research: dealing with the tension between 'science' and 'creativity'. AREA, 31(2): 169–178.
12. BAILEY, C., WHITE, C., and PAIN, R., 1999b. Response. AREA, 31(2): 182–183.
13. BAXTER, J., and EYLES, J., 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing rigor in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4): 505–525.
14. BAXTER, J., and EYLES, J., 1999. Prescription in research practice? Grounded theory in qualitative evaluation. AREA, 31(2): 179–181.
15. BECK, C., 1993. Qualitative research: the evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(2): 263–266.
16. BECK, C., 1994. Reliability and validity issues in phenomenological research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 16(3): 254–267.
17. BLUMENFELD-JONES, D., 1995. Fidelity as a criterion for practising and evaluating narrative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1): 25–35.
18. BOULTON, M., FITZPATRICK, R., and SWINBURN, C., 1996. Qualitative research in health care. II: a structured review and evaluation of studies. Journal of the Evaluation of Clinical Practice, 2(3): 171–179.
19. BOURDIEU, P., 1988. Homo Academicus, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
20. BRITISH SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION MEDICAL SOCIOLOGY GROUP. 1996. Criteria for the evaluation of qualitative research papers. Medical Sociology News, 22(1): 69–71.
21. BRITZMAN, D., 1995. The question of belief: writing a poststructural ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3): 229–238.
22. BURNS, N., 1989. Standards for qualitative research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 2(1): 44–52.
23. BUSTON, K., 1997. NUD*IST in action: its use and its usefulness in a study of chronic illness in young people. Sociological Research Online, 2(3)
24. CAMPBELL, D., and STANLEY, J., 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
25. CARR, L., 1994. The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: what method for nursing?. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(4): 716–721.
26. CERMAK, I., and STEPANIKOVA, I., 1997. Validity in qualitative research in psychology. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 41(6): 503–512.
27. CERMAK, I., and STEPANIKOVA, I., 1998. Data validity control in qualitative psychological research. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 42(1): 50–62.
28. CHAPPLE, A., and 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(6): 556–561.
29. CLARKE, L., 1992. Qualitative research: meaning and language. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(2): 243–252.
30. COFFEY, A., 1996. The power of accounts: authority and authorship in ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(1): 61–74.
31. COFFEY, A., HOLBROOK, B., and ATKINSON, P., 1996. Qualitative data analysis: technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1)
32. COOK, T., and CAMPBELL, D., 1979. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
33. DENZIN, N., 1997. Interpretive Ethnography: ethnographic practices for the 21st century, London: Sage.
34. DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., eds. 1994a. Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
35. DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., 1994b. “ Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., London: Sage.
36. DRISKO, J., 1997. Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: standards to promote academic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(1): 185–197.
37. EDGE, J., and RICHARDS, K., 1998. May I see your warrant, please? Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. Applied Linguistics, 19(3): 334–356.
38. ELDER, N., and MILLER, W., 1995. Reading and evaluating qualitative research studies. Journal of Family Practice, 41(3): 279–285.
39. EMDEN, C., and SANDELOWSKI, M., 1998. The good, the bad and the relative. Part one: conceptions of goodness in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 4(4): 206–212.
40. EMDEN, C., and SANDELOWSKI, M., 1999. The good, the bad and the relative. Part two: goodness and the criterion problem in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 5(1): 2–7.
41. ENGEL, J., and KUZEL, A., 1992. On the idea of what constitutes good qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 2(4): 504–510.
42. FIELD, P., and MORSE, J., 1985. Nursing Research: the application of qualitative approaches, Rockville, MD: Aspen.
43. FITCH, K., 1994. Criteria for evidence in qualitative research. Western Journal of Communication, 58(1): 32–38.
44. FLAHERTY, M., 1996. Some methodological principles from research in practice: validity, truth, and method in the study of lived time. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(3): 285–299.
45. FUCHS, M., 1993. The reversal of the ethnographical perspective: attempts at objectifying one's own cultural horizon. Dumont, Foucault, Sourdieu?. Thesis Eleven, 34: 104–125.
46. GARRATT, D., and HODKINSON, P., 1998. Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4): 515–539.
47. GEERTZ, C., 1988. Works and Lives: the anthropologist as author, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48. GIGLIOTTI, L., 1990. Environmental education: what went wrong? What can be done?. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1): 9–12.
49. GLINER, J., 1994. Reviewing qualitative research: proposed criteria for fairness and rigor. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 14(2): 78–90.
50. GOUGH, S., and REID, A., 2000. Environmental education research as profession, as science, as art and as craft: implications for guidelines in qualitative research. Environmental Education Research, 6(1): 47–57.
51. GUBA, E., ed. 1990. The Paradigm Dialog, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
52. GUBA, E., and LINCOLN, Y., 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation, London: Sage.
53. GUBA, E., and LINCOLN, Y., 1994. “ Competing paradigms in qualitative research ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., London: Sage.
54. HALL, J., and STEVENS, P., 1991. Rigor in feminist research. Advances in Nursing Science, 13(3): 16–29.
55. HAMMERSLEY, M., 1987. Some notes on the terms 'validity' and 'reliability'. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1): 73–81.
56. HAMMERSLEY, M., 1991. A note on Campbell's distinction between internal and external validity. Quality & Quantity, 25(4): 381–387.
57. HAMMERSLEY, M., 1992. Some reflections on ethnography and validity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(3): 195–203.
58. HART, P., 1996. Problematising enquiry in environmental education: issues of method in a study of teacher thinking and practice. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1): 56–88.
59. HART, P., 2000. Requisite variety: the problem with generic guidelines for diverse genres of inquiry. Environmental Education Research,: 37–46.
60. HASSELKUS, B., 1991. Qualitative research: not another orthodoxy (Editorial). Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 11(1): 3–7.
61. HASSELKUS, B., 1995. Beyond ethnography: expanding our understanding and criteria for qualitative research (Editorial). Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 15(2): 75–84.
62. HESHUSIUS, L., 1990. “ Discussion on criteria ”. In The Paradigm Dialog, Edited by: GUBA, E., Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
63. HODDINOTT, P., and PILL, R., 1997. A review of recently published qualitative research in general practice. More methodological questions than answers?. Family Practice, 14(4): 313–320.
64. HUBERMAN, A., and MILES, M., 1983. Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: some techniques for data reduction and display. Quality and Quantity, 17(3): 281–339.
65. HUFF, A., 1999. Writing for Scholarly Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66. IMRE, R., 1994. “ Commentary: epistemological disagreements and the search for understanding ”. In Qualitative Research in Social Work, Edited by: SHERMAN, E., and REID, W., New York: Columbia University Press.
67. IOZZI, L., 1989. What research says to the educator. Part one: environmental education and the affective domain. Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3): 3–9.
68. JOHNSON, M., 1999. Observations on positivism and pseudoscience in qualitative nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(1): 67–73.
69. KIRK, J., and MILLER, M., 1986. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
70. KNAFL, K., and HOWARD, M., 1984. Interpreting and reporting qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 7(1): 17–24.
71. KOCH, T., 1994. Establishing rigor in qualitative research: the decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(5): 976–986.
72. KOCH, T., 1996. Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: philosophy, rigor and representation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(1): 174–184.
73. KOCH, T., 1998. Story telling: is it really research?. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(6): 1182–1190.
74. KOCH, T., and HARRINGTON, A., 1998. Reconceptualising rigor: the case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(4): 882–890.
75. KVALE, S., 1996. InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing, London: Sage.
76. KWONG, J., 1995. On coercive environmental education. Religion & Liberty, 5(2): 7–10.
77. LAKOMSKI, G., 1991. Beyond paradigms: coherentism and holism in educational research. International Journal of Educational Research, 5(6): 501–597.
78. LATHER, P., 1991. Getting Smart: feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern, New York: Routledge.
79. LATHER, P., 1993. Fertile obsession: validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 34(4): 673–693.
80. LECOMPTE, M., and GOETZ, J., 1982. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1): 31–60.
81. LEEMING, F., DWYER, W., PORTER, B., and COBERN, M., 1993. Outcome research in environmental education: a critical review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4): 8–21.
82. LEWIS, G., 1981-82. A review of classroom methodologies for environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 13(2): 12–15.
83. LINCOLN, Y., 1995. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3): 275–289.
84. LINCOLN, Y., and GUBA, E., 1985. Naturalistic Enquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
85. LINCOLN, Y., and GUBA, E., 1990. Judging the quality of case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(1): 53–59.
86. MARCINKOWSKI, T., 1988/89. Commentary on 'when words speak louder than actions'. Journal of Environmental Education, 20(2): 3–5.
87. MARCINKOWSKI, T., 2000. The NAAEE workshop on developing guidelines for qualitative research in environmental education: an analysis of premises. processes and products, Environmental Education Research, 6(1): 27–35.
88. MARSHALL, C., 1985. Appropriate criteria of trustworthiness and goodness for qualitative research on education organisations. Quality and Quantity, 19(4): 353–373.
89. MARSHALL, C., 1989. “ Goodness criteria: are they objective criteria or judgement calls? ”. In The Paradigm Dialog, Edited by: GUBA, E., Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
90. MAXWELL, J., 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3): 279–300.
91. MAYS, N., and POPE, C., 1995. Rigor and qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 311(6997): 109–112.
92. MELEIS, A., 1996. Culturally competent scholarship: substance and rigor. Advances in Nursing Science, 19(2): 1–16.
93. MEULENBERG-BUSKENS, I., 1997. Turtles all the way down? On a quest for quality in qualitative research. South African Journal of Psychology, 27(2): 111–115.
94. MILES, M., and HUBERMAN, A., 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
95. MILES, M., and HUBERMAN, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. An expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn, London: Sage.
96. MOORE, G., BURNETT, M., and MOORE, B., 1986. Approved practices in reporting quantitative research. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 11(4): 1–24.
97. MORSE, J., 1989. Qualitative Nursing Research: a contemporary dialogue, Rockville, MD: Aspen.
98. MORSE, J., 1996. What is method? (Editorial). Qualitative Health Research, 6(4): 467–468.
99. MORSE, J., 1997. 'Perfectly health but dead': the myth of inter-rater reliability (Editorial). Qualitative Health Research, 7(4): 445–447.
100. MORSE, J., 1998. Validity by committee (Editorial). Qualitative Health Research, 8(4): 443–445.
101. MORSE, J., 1999. Silent debates in qualitative inquiry (Editorial). Qualitative Health Research, 9(2): 163–165.
102. MRAZEK, R., ed. 1993. Alternative Paradigms in Environmental Education Research, Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, Vol. VIII, Troy, OH: The North American Association for Environmental Education.
103. NAISH, M., 1993. Forum introduction: 'Never mind the quality-feel the width'--How shall we judge the quality of research in geographical and environmental education?. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 2(1): 64–65.
104. PECK, E., and SECKER, J., 1999. Quality criteria for qualitative research: does context make a difference?. Qualitative Health Research, 9(4): 552–558.
105. PESHKIN, A., 1993. The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2): 23–29.
106. PETERS, D., and CECI, S., 1982. Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 5: 187–255.
107. PILE, S., 1991. Practising interpretative geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16: 458–469.
108. POPAY, J., ROGERS, A., and WILLIAMS, G., 1998. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3): 341–351.
109. RICHARDS, L., 1999. Data alive! The thinking behind NVivo. Qualitative Health Research, 9(3): 412–428.
110. RICHARDS, L., and RICHARDS, T., 1994. “ Using computers in qualitative analysis ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
111. RICHARDSON, L., 1994. “ Writing: a method of inquiry ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., London: Sage.
112. ROBOTTOM, I., and HART, P., 1993. Research in Environmental Education: engaging the debate, Geelong: Deakin University Press.
113. RODGERS, B., and COWLES, K., 1993. The qualitative research audit trail: a complex collection of documentation. Research in Nursing and Health, 16(3): 219–226.
114. ROSE, G., 1982. Deciphering Sociological Research, London: Macmillan.
115. SANDELOWSKI, M., 1986. The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3): 27–37.
116. SANDELOWSKI, M., 1993. Rigor or rigor-mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2): 1–8.
117. SCHEURICH, J., 1997. Research Method in the Postmodern, London: Falmer.
118. SCHWANDT, T., 1994. “ Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: DENZIN, N., and LINCOLN, Y., London: Sage.
119. SCHWANDT, T., 1996. Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1): 58–72.
120. SEALE, C., 1999a. Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4): 465–478.
121. SEALE, C., 1999b. The Quality of Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
122. SEALE, C., and SILVERMAN, D., 1997. Ensuring rigor in qualitative research. European Journal of Public Health, 7(4): 379–384.
123. SECKER, J., WIMBURNE, E., WATSON, J., and MILBURN, K., 1995. Qualitative methods in health promotion research: some criteria for quality. Health Education Journal, 54(1): 74–87.
124. SILVERMAN, D., 1998a. Qualitative research: meanings or practices?. Information Systems Journal, 8(1): 3–20.
125. SILVERMAN, D., 1998b. The quality of qualitative health research: the open-ended interview and its alternatives. Social Sciences in Health, 4(2): 104–118.
126. SMITH, J., 1990. “ Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria ”. In The Paradigm Dialog, Edited by: GUBA, E., Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
127. SMITH, M., 1987. Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24: 173–184.
128. SMITH-SEBASTO, N., 2000. An exploration of potential guidelines for conducting and reporting environmental education research: qualitative methods of inquiry. Environmental Education Research,: 9–26.
129. SORENSEN, N., 1997. The problem of parallelism: a problem for pedagogic research and development seen from the perspective of environmental and health education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2): 179–187.
130. STEWART, J., 1982. Empirical research reported in the Journal of Environmental Education: a critique. Journal of Environmental Education, 14(1): 42–44.
131. STILES, W., 1993. Quality-control in qualitative research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(6): 593–618.
132. STRONACH, I., and MACLURE, M., 1997. Educational Research Undone: the postmodern embrace, Buckingham: Open University Press.
133. SWANBORN, P., 1996. A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30(1): 19–35.
134. TOMPKINS, P., 1994. Principles of rigor for assessing evidence in 'qualitative' communication research. Western Journal of Communication, 58(1): 44–50.
135. WEITZMAN, E., and MILES, M., 1995. Computer Programs for Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
136. ZARUBA, K., TOMA, J., and STARK, J., 1996. Criteria used for qualitative research in the refereeing process. Review of Higher Education, 19(4): 435–460.
137. ZELLER, N., and FARMER, F., 1999. 'Catchy, clever titles are not acceptable': style, APA, and qualitative reporting. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(1): 3–19.