Developing and submitting credible qualitative manuscripts

Counselor Education and Supervision

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 210-217

  Kline, William B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957321773     PISSN: 00110035     EISSN: 15566978     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2008.tb00052.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Charmaz, K., (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
2. Corden, A., and Sainsbury, R., (2006). Exploring “quality”: Research participants’ perspectives on verbatim quotations. Social Research Methodology, 9, 97-110.
3. Creswell, J. W., (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., and Davidson, L., (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717-732.
5. Giorgi, A. (Ed.). (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
6. Howe, K., and Eisenhart, M., (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-9.
7. Johnson, R., and Waterfield, J., (2004). Making words count: The value of qualitative research. Physiotherapy Research International, 9, 121-131.
8. Kline, W. B., and Farrell, C., (2005). Recurring manuscript problems: Recommendations for writing, training, and research. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 166-175.
9. Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
10. Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E., (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., and Spiers, J., (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http: www.ualberta.caiiqmbackissues12Finalhtmlmorse.html.
12. Moustakas, C., (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Patton, M. Q., (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
14. Poggenpoel, M., and Myburgh, C. P. H., (2005). Obstacles in qualitative research: Possible solutions. Education, 126, 304-311.
15. Rolfe, G., (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the ideal of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 304-310.
16. Schram, T. H., (2006). Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
17. Schwandt, T. A., (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Smith, J. K., (1993). After the demise of empiricism: The problem of judging social and educational inquiry. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19. Smith, J. K., and Deemer, D. K., (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 877-896). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Smith, J. K., and Heshusius, L., (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the qualitative-quantitative debate among educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-12.
21. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Tobin, G. A., and Begley, C. M., (2004). Methodological rigor within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388-396.
23. Tuckett, A. G., (2005). Rigour in qualitative research: Complexities and solutions: Part II. Nurse Researcher, 13, 29-42.