Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Statement of problem

A variety of conceptions of qualitative research exist. This leads to a situation in which there are competing claims as to what counts as good-quality work. These competing claims revolve around the issue of criteria and how they are used to pass judgment on qualitative research. Those involved in sport and exercise sciences need to reflect on this issue with a view to generating further dialogue and a greater understanding of difference within the research community.

Method

Two ideal types of researcher, one a criteriologist the other a relativist, are constructed to illustrate how each might judge qualitative studies of different kinds.

Results

A comparison of the ways in which the criteriologist and the relativist draw on different assumptions to judge qualitative studies illustrates the constraining nature of the former and the expansive possibilities of the latter.

Conclusions

Criteria should be viewed as lists of characterizing traits that are open to reinterpretation as times, conditions, and purposes change. Researchers need to adopt the role of connoisseur in order to pass judgment on different kinds of study in a fair and ethical manner.

Section snippets

Scenario 1: criteriology in action

Like many sport and exercise scientists, Dr X holds to the parallel perspective described by Sparkes (1998) regarding the issue of validity and the problem of criteria. That is, he1 believes that qualitative research represents an alternative paradigm to quantitative or postpositivistic research, and, therefore, a set of criteria unique to

Scenario 2: relativism in action

Dr Y is equally as concerned as Dr X to promote high quality research in sport and exercise sciences. However, rather than adopting the parallel perspective on validity she renounces this concept and seeks alternative criteria for judging qualitative inquiry in ways described by Sparkes (1998). Dr Y, therefore, like Dr X does believe in using criteria to judge research. The difference is that she does not believe that these criteria should be determined in advance of any particular piece of

Conclusions

Of the two scenarios we have presented, we clearly favour the second over the first. As we have indicated, a criteriological approach to judgment, while it might provide a false sense of security, help in the production of ‘quick’ and ‘clean’ research, and make life easier for those doing the judging, it is based on very shaky philosophical ‘foundations.’ This approach is also inherently limiting and one dimensional. At its worst, such an approach simply imposes its own preordained criteria on

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References (42)

  • D. Carless et al.

    The physical activity experiences of men with serious mental illness: three short stories

    Psychology of Sport and Exercise

    (2008)
  • R. Bernstein

    The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity

    (1991)
  • N. Denzin et al.

    Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research

  • E. Eisner

    The enlightened eye

    (1991)
  • C. Ellis

    Final negotiations

    (1995)
  • C. Ellis et al.

    Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject

  • D. Garratt et al.

    Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma

    Qualitative Inquiry

    (1998)
  • D. Gould et al.

    Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II qualitative analysis

    The Sport Psychologist

    (1996)
  • E. Guba et al.

    Fourth generation evaluation

    (1989)
  • E. Guba et al.

    Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences

  • L. Hardy et al.

    Understanding psychological preparation for sport

    (1996)
  • S. Holman Jones

    Autoethnography: making the personal political

  • N. Holt

    Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: an autoethnographic writing story

    International Journal of Qualitative Methods

    (2003)
  • R. Jones

    Dilemmas, maintaining ‘face’ and paranoia: an average coaching life

    Qualitative Inquiry

    (2006)
  • Y. Lincoln

    Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research

    Qualitative Inquiry

    (1995)
  • Y. Lincoln et al.

    Naturalistic inquiry

    (1985)
  • Y. Lincoln et al.

    Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences

  • R. Pelias

    A methodology of the heart

    (2004)
  • L. Richardson

    Writing: a method of inquiry

  • L. Richardson et al.

    Writing: a method of inquiry

  • T. Schwandt

    Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text