A matter of taste: Evaluating the quality of qualitative research

Nursing Inquiry

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 86-94

  Sandelowski, Margarete ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Qualitative research; Quality criteria; Reliability; Taste; Validity

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NURSING RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; JUDGMENT; NURSING RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84928987458     PISSN: 13207881     EISSN: 14401800     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/nin.12080     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Arsel Z and J Bean. 2013. Taste regimes and market-mediated practice. Journal of Consumer Research 39: 899-917.
2. Barbour RS. 2001. Checklists for improving rigor in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal 322: 1115-7.
3. Bazerman C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. Bleijenbergh I, H Korzilius and P Verschuren. 2011. Methodological criteria for the internal validity and utility of practice oriented research. Quality & Quantity 45: 145-56.
5. Boeije HR, F van Wesel and E Alisic. 2011. Making a difference: Towards a method for weighing the evidence in a qualitative synthesis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17: 657-63.
6. Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. trans. R Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Boydell KM, BM Gladstone, T Volpe, B Allemang and E Stasiulis. 2012. The production and dissemination of knowledge: A scoping review of arts-based health research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13:1, Art. 32, 40 paragraphs. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1201327 (accessed 21 May 2014).
8. Brockman J. 2013. This explains everything: Deep, beautiful, and elegant theories of how the world works. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
9. Chandrasekhar S. 1987. Truth and beauty: Aesthetics and motivations in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. 2013. http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_951541699e9edc71ce66c9bac4734c69.pdf (accessed 20 July 2014).
11. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: Making sense of evidence. 2013. http://www.casp-uk.net/find-appraise-act/appraising-the-evidence/ (accessed 20 July 2014).
12. Eakin JM and E Mykhalovskiy. 2003. Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: Reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9: 187-94.
13. Eisner EW. 1975. The perceptive eye: Toward the reformation of educational evaluation. Stanford Evaluation Consortium, Department of Education, Stanford University. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED128408.pdf (accessed 28 August 2014).
14. Eisner EW. 1979. The educational imagination. New York, NY: Macmillan.
15. Eisner EW. 1985. Aesthetic modes of knowing. In Learning and teaching the ways of knowing: Eighty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, ed. E Eisner, Part II, 23-36. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
16. Eisner EW. 1998. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
17. Eisner EW. 2003. Artistry in education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47: 373-84.
18. Elliott C. 2006. Considering the connoisseur: Probing the language of taste. Canadian Review of American Studies 36: 229-36.
19. Ellis C, TE Adams and AP Bochner. 2011. Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12:1, Art. 10, 40 paragraphs. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108 (accessed 20 July 2014).
20. Emden C and M Sandelowski. 1998. The good, the bad, and the relative, part 1: Conceptions of goodness in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice 4: 206-12.
21. Emden C and M Sandelowski. 1999. The good, the bad, and the relative, part 2: Goodness and the criterion problem in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice 5: 2-7.
22. Fenster M. 1991. The problem of taste within the problematic of culture. Communication Theory 1: 87-105.
23. Finchamp B. 2014. Book review: Joshua I. Newman and Michael D. Giardina, Sport, Spectacle, and NASCAR Nation: Consumption and the Cultural Politics of Neoliberalism. Qualitative Research 14: 403-4.
24. Franzosi R. 2004. From words to numbers: Narrative, data, and social science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25. Freeman M. 2014. The hermeneutical aesthetics of thick description. Qualitative Inquiry 20: 827-33.
26. Gans H. 1999. Popular culture and high culture: An analysis and evaluation of taste, revised and updated. New York, NY: Basic Books.
27. Gherardi S. 2009. Practice? It's a matter of taste!. Management Learning 40: 535-50.
28. Golden-Biddle K and K Locke. 1993. An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science 4: 595-616.
29. Hammersley M. 2008. The issue of quality in qualitative research. In Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays, ed. M Hammersley, 158-79. Los Angeles: Sage.
30. Hannes K, C Lockwood and A Pearson. 2010. A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 20: 1736-43.
31. Hennion A. 2007. Those things that hold us together: Taste and sociology. Cultural Sociology 1: 97-114.
32. Heyvaert M, K Hannes, B Maes and P Onghena. 2013. Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7: 302-27.
33. Jackson AY and LA Mazzei. 2012. Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London: Routledge.
34. Jewell CJ and LA Bero. 2008. "Developing good taste in evidence": Facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. Milbank Quarterly 86: 177-208.
35. Keen S and L Todres. 2007. Strategies for disseminating qualitative research findings: Three exemplars. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), Art. 17, 36 paragraphs. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0703174 (accessed 28 August 2014).
36. King JP. 1992. The art of mathematics. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
37. Kuipers G. 2006. Television and taste hierarchy: The case of Dutch television comedy. Media Culture & Society 28: 359-78.
38. Lee J. 2014. Genre-appropriate judgments of qualitative research. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44: 316-48.
39. Lieberson S. 2000. A matter of taste: How names, fashion and culture change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Nisbet R. 1976. Sociology as an art form. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Ollivier M and V Fridman. 2001. Taste/taste culture. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, eds NJ Smelser and PB Baltes, 15442-7. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science. http://educ.jmu.edu/~brysonbp/symbound/papers2001/Olivier.html (accessed 31 July 2014).
42. Orr S. 2010. '"We kind of try to merge our own experience with the objectivity of the criteria": The role of connoisseurship and tacit practice in undergraduate fine art assessment. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 9: 5-19.
43. Pawson R. 2006. Digging for nuggets: How 'bad' research can yield 'good' evidence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9: 127-42.
44. Petticrew M and H Roberts. 2003. Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: Horses for courses. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 57: 527-9.
45. Pluye P, M-P Gagnon, F Griffiths and J Johnson-Lafleur. 2009. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies 46: 529-46.
46. Prasad P. 2005. Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.
47. PRISMA: Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. 2009. http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm (accessed 20 July 2014).
48. Ravenek MJ and D Laliberte Rudman. 2013. Bridging conceptions of quality in moments of qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12: 436-56.
49. Rose G. 2012. Visual methodologies: An Introduction to researching with visual materials, 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage.
50. Rosenblatt IM. 1978/1994. The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work, with new preface and epilogue. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
51. Sandelowski M. 1994. The proof is in the pottery: Toward a poetic for qualitative inquiry. In Critical issues in qualitative research methods, ed J Morse, 46-63. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Sandelowski M. 1995. On the aesthetics of qualitative research. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship 27: 205-9.
53. Sandelowski M. 2003. Tables or tableaux? Writing and reading mixed methods studies. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, eds A Tashakkori and C Teddlie, 321-50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Sandelowski M and J Barroso. 2002. Reading qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1:1, Article 5. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/issue/view/385 (accessed 21 May 2014).
55. Sandelowski M and J Barroso. 2007. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York, NY: Springer.
56. Schou L, H Høstrup, EE Lyngsø, S Larsen and I Poulsen. 2012. Validation of a new assessment tool for qualitative research articles. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68: 2086-94.
57. Shapin S. 1984. Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology. Social Studies of Science 14: 481-520.
58. Smith JK. 1990. Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In The paradigm dialog, ed EG Guba, 167-87. Newbury Park: Sage.
59. Stige B, K Malterud and T Midtgarden. 2009. Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 19: 1504-16.
60. Strati A. 2008. Aesthetics in the study of organizational life. In The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organization, eds D Barry and H Hansen, 229-38. London, UK: Sage.
61. STROBE Statement. 2009. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology. http://www.strobe-statement.org/?id=available-checklists (accessed 20 July 2014).
62. Thorne S. 2011. Toward methodological emancipation in applied health research. Qualitative Health Research 21: 443-53.
63. Tong A, P Sainsbury, J Craig. 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting Qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19: 349-57.
64. Tracy SJ. 2010. Qualitative quality: Eight "big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16: 837-51.
65. Tufte ER. 2006. Beautiful evidence. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press LLC.
66. Watson C. 2009. The "impossible vanity": Uses and abuses of empathy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research 9: 105-17.
67. Watts JH. 2008. Emotion, empathy and exit: Reflections on doing ethnographic qualitative research on sensitive topics. Medical Sociology Online 3: 3-14.
68. White DG. 2001. Evaluating evidence and making judgments of study quality: Loss of evidence and risks to policy and practice decisions. Critical Public Health 11: 3-17.
69. Woodward I and M Emmison. 2001. From aesthetic principles to collective sentiments: The logics of everyday judgments of taste. Poetics 29: 295-316.