Download full text in PDF (in Russian)

Journal	Methodology and History of Psychology. 2009. Volume 4. Issue 3
Section	Methodology of Qualitative Research
Pages	106-130
Type	Scientific article
Title	Problem of quality of qualitative research: principles of scientific and ethical validation
Authors	Busygina, Natalia Petrovna
Abstract	The article deals with the main approaches to assessing the quality of qualitative research. The author shows that today a considerable number of possible criteria of quality of this type of research is prompted, and their number continues to grow, so that conversations on the criteria start to resemble situation of senseless "multiplication of entities." In addition, interpretative criteriology contributed to an apparent shift in emphasis from the techniques and procedures built into the research process and allowing to adjust the latter flexibly, to assessment of the already finished product. From the point of view of the author, a return to the validity as an integral research quality index makes it possible to emphasize the procedural aspects – validation strategies, serving the mechanisms of self-correction of the research process. The author believes that validation in qualitative research, as well as in other types of research, should be based on the principles of critical rationalism. The article discusses specific strategies and technology of validation in qualitative research, and raises questions about the need to expand the concept of the quality of psychological research in connection with the reflection of their ethical component.
Keywords	qualitative researches quality of qualitative researches interpretative criteriology validation strategies critical rationalism ethical validation
References	Белановский С.А. Индивидуальное глубокое интервью. М., 2001. Бусыгина Н.П. Кризис классической эпистемологии и проблема оценки валидности психологического исследования // Гуманитарные исследования в психотерапии / Под ред. Ф.Е. Василюка. М., 2007. С. 11-28. Бусыгина Н.П. Феноменологический и герменевтический подходы в качественных психологических исследованиях // Культурно-историческая психология. 2009. № 1. С. 57-65. Гадамер Х.-Г. Истина и метод: Основы философской герменевтики. М., 1988. Гадамер Х.-Г. Истина в науках о духе // Топос. 2000. № 1. С. 7-12. Квале С. Исследовательское интервью. М., 2003. Кэмпбелл Д. Модели экспериментов в социальной психологии и прикладных исследованиях. СПб., 1996. Мельникова О.Т. Фокус-группы: Методы, методология, модерирование. М., 2007. Позер Х. Правила как формы мышления: Об истине и конвенции в науках // Научные и вненаучные формы мышления. Материалы симпозиума. М.; Киль, 1996. Страус А., Корбин Дж. Основы качественного исследования: Обоснованная теория, процедуры и техники. М., 2007. Улановский А.М. Качественная методология и конструктивистская ориентация в психологии // Вопросы психологии. 2006. № 3. С. 27-37. Xюбнер К. Критика научного разума. М., 1994. Altheide D., Johnson J. Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research // Handbook of qualitative research / Ed. by N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, 1994. P. 485-499. Angen M.J. Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue // Qualitative health research. 2000. Vol. 10. N 3. P. 378-395. Bailey P.H. Assuring quality in narrative analysis // Western J. of Nursing Research. 1996. Vol. 18. P. 186-194. Cronbach L.J., Meehl P.E. Construct validity in psychological tests // Psychological Bulletin. 1955. Vol. 52. P. 281-302. Eco U. (Ed.) Interpretation and overinterpretation. Cambridge, 1992. Enerstvedt R.T. The problem of validity in social science // Issues of validity in qualitative research / Ed. by S. Kvale. Lund, 1989. P. 135-173. Frosh S., Emerson P.D. Interpretation and overinterpretation: disputing the meaning of texts // Qualitative Research. 2005. Vol. 5 (3). P. 307-324. Giorgi A. Facts, values and the psychology of the human person // The Indo-Pacific J. of Phenomenology. 2006. Vol. 6. Special Edition. [http://www.ipjp.org/issues/aug2006special/Special_Edition_Method-01_Giorgi.pdf] Gould J., Kolb W. (Ed.) A dictionary of social sciences. N.Y., 1964. Hamberg K. et al. Scientific rigor in qualitative research – examples from a study of women’s health in family practice // Family Practice. 1994. Vol. 11. N 2. P. 176-181. Heshusius L. Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness // Educational Researcher. 1994. Vol. 23 (3). P. 15-22. Kirk J., Miller M.L. Reliability and validity in qualitative research // Qualitative Research Methods Series. Vol. 1. Newbury Park, 1986. Lather P.A. Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism // Sociological Quarterly. 1993. Vol. 34 (4). P. 673-693. Lenzo K. Validity and self-reflexivity meet poststructuralism: Scientific ethos and the transgressive self // Educational Researcher. 1995. Vol. 24 (4). P. 17-23. Lincoln Y., Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, 1985. Lincoln Y.S. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research // Qualitative Inquiry. 1995. Vol. 3. P. 275-289. Marshall C. Goodness criteria: Are they objective or judgement calls? // The paradigm dialog / Ed. by E.G. Guba. Newbury Park, CA, 1990. P. 188-197. Maxwell J.A. Understanding and validity in qualitative research // Harvard Educational Review. 1992. Vol. 62. P. 279-299. Mays N., Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research // British Medical J. 2000. Vol. 320. P. 50-52. Mishler E.G. Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies // Harvard Educational Review. 1990. Vol. 60. P. 415-440. Morse J.M. et al. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research // International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2002. Vol. 1 (2). Article 2. [http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/] Peshkin A. The goodness of qualitative research // Educational Researcher. 1993. Vol. 22 (2). P. 24-30. Prilleltensky I. The morals and politics of psychology. Albany, 1994. Ricoeur P. The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as a text // Interpretive social science: A reader / Ed. by P. Rabinow, W.M. Sullivan. Berkeley, 1979. P. 73-101. Runyan W.M. Why did Van Gogh cut off his ear? The problem of alternative explanations in psychobiography // J. of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981. Vol. 40. P. 1070-1077. Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in qualitative research // Advances in Nursing Science. 1986. Vol. 8. P. 27-37. Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited // Advances in Nursing Science. 1993. Vol. 16. P. 1-8. Seale C. The quality of qualitative research. L., 1999. Silverman D. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. L., 2000. Smith J.K. Goodness criteria: Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria // The paradigm dialogue / Ed. by E.G. Guba. Newbury Park, 1990. Р. 167-187. Steiner C.J. The technicity paradigm and scientism in qualitative research // The Qualitative Report. 2002. 7 (2). [http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-2/steiner.html] Tankard J.W. The statistical pioneers. Cambridge, 1984. Tolman C.V., Maiers W. (Eds.) Critical psychology: Contribution to an historical science of the subject. Cambridge, 1991. Tschudi F. Do qualitative and quantitative methods require different approaches to validity // Issues of validity in qualitative research / Ed. by S. Kvale. Lund, 1989. P. 109-134. Van Manen M. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Ontario, 1990. Whittmore R., Chase S.K., Mandle C.L. Validity in qualitative research // Qualitative Health Research. 2001. Vol. 11. N 4. P. 522-537. Yin R.K. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, 2003.
To cite this article	Busygina, N.P. (2009). Problem of quality of qualitative research: principles of scientific and ethical validation. Methodology and History of Psychology, 4(3), 106-130.