TY - JOUR
T1 - Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
AU - Barbour, Rosaline S.
N1 - dc.publisher: BMJ Publishing
This paper gave rise to some debate in the BMJ's rapid response section and has been instrumental in the issuing of several invitations to speak at international symposia. Research Group 4 - Quality of Life and Quality of Care in Acute and Chronic Illness
PY - 2001/5
Y1 - 2001/5
N2 - Checklists can be useful improving qualitative research methods, but overzealous and uncritical use can be counterproductive Reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) is overly prescriptive and results in “the tail wagging the dog” None of these “technical fixes” in itself confers rigour; they can strengthen the rigour of qualitative research only if embedded in a broader understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis Otherwise we risk compromising the unique contribution that systematic qualitative research can make to health services research.
AB - Checklists can be useful improving qualitative research methods, but overzealous and uncritical use can be counterproductive Reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) is overly prescriptive and results in “the tail wagging the dog” None of these “technical fixes” in itself confers rigour; they can strengthen the rigour of qualitative research only if embedded in a broader understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis Otherwise we risk compromising the unique contribution that systematic qualitative research can make to health services research.
U2 - 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
DO - 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
M3 - Article
SN - 0959-8146
VL - 322
SP - 1115
EP - 1117
JO - BMJ
JF - BMJ
IS - 7294
ER -