ISSUE OF QUALITY IN A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: AN OVERVIEW

Abstract

The issues of quality in a qualitative research cannot be addressed by a single or constant method. It, however, may be judged through the aggregate of various perspectives such as “credibility,” “dependability,” “confirmability,” “ethics” and so on which is the central focus of this paper. In a qualitative research, researchers often engage with flexible realities where the subjective views of respondents may shape the research frame and the whole process of an inquiry. In such a situation, quality issue is more pertinent as it deals with peoplr’s everyday realitiy and subjective explanation of it. The study focuses on the issue of quality in a qualitative research and provides a middle way to deal with this issue in respect to the debates over it. Using secondary sources it provides a comprehensive idea for ensuring quality in a qualitative research.

Full text

IIASS – VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2015
Peer-reviewed academic journal
Innovative Issues and Approaches in
Social Sciences

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 2
Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences
IIASS is a double blind peer review academic journal published 3 times
yearly (January, May, September) covering different social sciences:
political science, sociology, economy, public administration, law,
management, communication science, psychology and education.
IIASS has started as a SIdip – Slovenian Association for Innovative
Political Science journal and is now being published in the name of
CEOs d.o.o. by Zalozba Vega (publishing house).
Typeset
This journal was typeset in 11 pt. Arial, Italic, Bold, and Bold Italic; the
headlines were typeset in 14 pt. Arial, Bold
Abstracting and Indexing services
COBISS, International Political Science Abstracts, CSA Worldwide
Political Science Abstracts, CSA Sociological Abstracts, PAIS
International, DOAJ.
Publication Data:
CEOs d.o.o.
Innovative issues and approaches in social sciences, 2015,
vol. 8, no. 1
ISSN 1855-0541
Additional information: www.iiass.com

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 142
ISSUE OF QUALITY IN A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH:
AN OVERVIEW
Iqbal Ahmed Chowdhury1
Abstract
The issues of quality in a qualitative research cannot be addressed by a
single or constant method. It, however, may be judged through the
aggregate of various perspectives such as “credibility,” “dependability,”
“confirmability,” “ethics” and so on which is the central focus of this
paper. In a qualitative research, researchers often engage with flexible
realities where the subjective views of respondents may shape the
research frame and the whole process of an inquiry. In such a situation,
quality issue is more pertinent as it deals with peoplr’s everyday realitiy
and subjective explanation of it. The study focuses on the issue of
quality in a qualitative research and provides a middle way to deal with
this issue in respect to the debates over it. Using secondary sources it
provides a comprehensive idea for ensuring quality in a qualitative
research.
Keywords: Method, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Quality, Validity,
Reliability, Ethics, Credibility, Dependability, Confirmability
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12959/issn.1855-0541.IIASS-2015-no1-art09
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet,
Bangladesh. Email: chowdhia@myumanitoba.ca

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 143
Introduction
The issues of quality in a qualitative research cannot be addressed by a
single or constant method. It, however, may be judged through various
perspectives such as “credibility,” “dependability,” “confirmability,”
“ethics” and so forth. In a qualitative research, researchers often engage
with flexible realities where the subjective views of respondents may
shape the research frame and the whole process of an inquiry (Creswell
1994:5). As a result, creation and recreation of multiple realities may be
frequent based on the field situations where researchers may not come
up with a quality research outcome by only using a single,
predetermined way. Moreover, qualitative research “carries its meaning
in its entire text” where the conventional ways of ensuring quality may
not be sufficient. So, to make sure of a successful and sensible
qualitative social research, researchers may follow multiple criteria of
quality in their work (Richardson 2008:474).
The question of quality in a qualitative research, which often depends on
the emerging methods of inquiry, is different from the question of quality
in a quantitative research, which stands for conventional pre-structured
methods of inquiry (Cook 1983:78). For example, “trustworthiness” is
usually considered as an influential criterion of the quality of a social
research, where quantitative inquiries assess it with the help of “validity,”
“reliability,” “generalizability,” and “objectivity” and advocate for
predetermined methods for social researches as well (Marshall &
Rossman 2011:19; Lincoln & Guba 1985: 289-331). Contrary, the
inherent characteristics of a qualitative research are different from
quantitative one (Holloway & Wheeler 1996:172; Emden et. al.
2001:205). In a qualitative research, researchers often use “credibility,”
“reliability,” “transferability,” and “confirmability” as the criteria of
“trustworthiness” (Lincoln & Guba 1985:289-331) and use multiple
methods to ascertain it. Besides, the qualitative paradigm contains the
values of appreciation, aesthetics, ethics, humanity, and morality and
usually suggests different methods to produce a quality research
(Clifford & Murcus 1986, cited in Richardson 2008:475). Moreover,
qualitative research is adaptable to multiple realities and is also more
open to multiple shaping of research methods (Lincoln & Guba 1985:40).
Hence, the aspects of quality in a qualitative research cannot be
addressed in the similar ways it is incorporated in a quantitative
research.
In addition to the aforementioned issues, the ethical questions are also
important attributes to evaluate the quality of a research. In a qualitative
social inquiry, researchers often involve with the respondents’ activities
and thus their values and emotions may affect the outcomes of the

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 144
research (Fine 1993:281). Likewise, researchers may face unintended
consequences during fieldwork which may not be solved by the pre-
given guidelines of ethical committees (Guillemin & Gillam 2004:261-
263; Haggerty 2004:393). In such a situation, ethical consideration may
substantiate the quality of a social inquiry.
Beyond these concerns, additional issues, such as “triangulation” and
“crystallization,” choosing appropriate data collection method(s), ways of
data analysis, and processes of writing qualitative notes may be
considered to be significant aspects of judging quality in qualitative
research (Goffman 1989:131; Richardson 2008:473-495).
This paper focuses on the matter that quality of qualitative research may
be ensured through the combination of multiple criteria. For this reason,
the analysis is divided into six parts. The first section conceptualizes the
notion of ‘quality in a qualitative research’. Debates over “credibility,”
“transferability,” “dependability,” and “confirmability” in the context of a
quality social research is discudssed in the section two. The third section
focuses on the importance of ethical issues to judge the quality of a
qualitative inquiry. Issues related to “triangulation” and “crystallization”
are illustrated in the fourth section. The fifth section covers data
collection and data analysis methods in respect to the production of a
quality research. The last section conveys the author’s reflection and
conclusion.
Conceptualization of the Term ‘Quality in a Qualitative Research’
What is meant by “quality” in view of qualitative research? How can
quality of a qualitative research be judged? In which ways can a quality
research be produced? These issues depend on the clarification of the
term ‘quality’ in respect to qualitative research. So, before proceeding to
the main issues, the term ‘quality in qualitative research’ needs to be
conceptualized.
As discussed earlier, researchers may not be able to identify specific
criteria to measure quality in qualitative research because they often
depended on the conventional positivistic paradigm (which emphasize
on the application of the methods of natural science in the fields of social
sciences) which emphasized on “validity,” “reliability,” “generalizability,”
and “objectivity” as the standards of ensuring quality in qualitative
research (Marshall & Rossman 2011:41; Richardson 2008:475; Lincoln
& Guba 1985:289-331). However, the conventional principles seem to
be insufficient to provide adequate standards for a quality inquiry in the
field of a qualitative research as qualitative study deals with multiple
realities. In such a situation, researchers needed to explore the realities

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 145
with full of confidence as it relies on the interpretation of informants
(Creswell 1994:5-6). So, the conventional fixed criteria of judging quality
may not be effective in qualitative inquiry. Recently, researchers
emphasize on the “trustworthiness” as a determinant of the quality
research (Marshall & Rossman 2011:39-41). Besides, they advocate for
“credibility,” “transferability,” “dependability,” and “confirmability” for
“trustworthiness” of a research work. The pioneers of the qualitative
paradigm also propose ethical issues as the prerequisites of this
endeavor.
Besides these dominant criteria, researchers may also include
dimensions of “triangulation” such as, “methodological triangulation” and
“theoretical triangulation” for producing a quality project. Richardson
(2008) advocates for “crystallization” instead of “triangulation”. Similarly,
the quality of the techniques employed in qualitative research for
collecting and analyzing data may be regarded as the facilitators of a
quality project. Moreover, the mode of qualitative writing might also
matter for the quality of a qualitative research. Lastly, there are other
criteria in qualitative research which are different from the criteria of
quality of quantitative social research. For example, Creswell and Miller
(2000, cited in Marshall & Rossman 2011:40) provide lists of items to
ensure quality of a qualitative research. These are:
 Triangulation;
 Searching for disconfirming evidence;
 Engaging in reflexivity;
 Member checking;
 Prolonged engagement in the field
 Collaboration;
 Developing; and
 Audit trail Peer debriefing.
Apart from these above mentioned aspects, Maxwell (1996:92-98)
explains eight items to define the quality of a qualitative social inquiry.
Moreover, researchers need to consider multifaceted ethical issues
emerged during the fieldworks which may be incongruent with the
predetermined rules.
Based on the above discussion, this paper, therefore, conceptualizes the
term ‘quality’ from multiple dimensions. In this regard, it concentrates on
the following model related to the issue “quality in qualitative research”:

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 146
Ethics
Credibility
Dependability
Transferabi
lity
Data collection
technique
Confirmability
Quality in
Qualitative
Research
Data
analysis
Triangulati
on and
Crystallizat
Figure 1: Quality in Qualitative Research
From the above figure, the term ‘quality’ can be conceptualized clearly
where quality of a qualitative research depends on the multiple aspects
such as, credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability,
triangulation, data collection technique(s), data analysis procedures, and
ethical issues. The quality of combined issues, mentioned above,
reflects the overall quality of a qualitative research and this overall
quality is considered to be the quality measures of a qualitative
research. Due to the dependent on more than one issue, the quality of a
qualitative research may be fluid and vary in degrees. It is exected that
this conceptualization would provide a break from the conventional fixed
criteria and provide a new criterion—a new way of thinking— for quality
issues in a qualitative research. Moreover, this conceptual model can
also be used to validate the quality of a qualitative writing which is
regarded as “intertextuality” (Richardson 2008:478-479).
The issues of Credibility, Transferability, Dependability and
Confirmability
The quality of a social research necessitates “truth value,” “applicability,”
“consistency,” and “neutrality”. These issues are identified as the
indicator of “trustworthiness” of a research, and in a qualitative research,
these are known as “credibility,” “transferability,” “dependability,” and
“confirmability” in the place of “internal validity,” “external validity/
generalizability,” “reliability,” and “objectivity” used in the quantitative
research. As these characteristics are believed to be a widely accepted

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 147
ways of assessing quality of qualitative social inquiry, the debates over
these issues are discussed in this paper.
To ensure the quality of a social research, the techniques offered by
quantitative paradigm such as validity (internal and external), reliability,
and objectivity may not be applicable in the field of a qualitative social
research (Marshall & Rossman 2011:41; Lincoln and Goba 1985:289-
331). Researchers in the qualitative research often deal with naturalistic
fields where different techniques of data collection may need to be
followed. In such a situation, their values may affect the whole research
process. Similarly, respondents could also affect the research findings.
As a result, qualitative research may lack clearly defined quality
measures. According to Hammersley (2007),
“There is a sharp conflict between the demands for explicit criteria, for
example in order to serve systematic reviewing and evidence-based
practice, and arguments on the part of some qualitative researchers
that such criteria [advocated by quantitative researchers] are neither
necessary nor desirable” (p. 287).
Hence, a dearth of knowledge may arise in the way of judging the quality
of a qualitative research through the techniques of quantitative social
researches. So, the issue of quality in qualitative research is debating
due to the disconformities over the ways of addressing it.
The application of quantitative techniques, which deal with threats to the
“validity” and “reliability” of data, started since 1986 (Munhall & Oiler:
1996:273), in the qualitative fields of inquiry may bring about
incompatibility in the world of knowledge. Likewise, The influence of
“mechanistic scientism and quantitative research” tradition may be
inappropriate in the qualitative field of inquiries because it undercut the
dynamic and creative process of qualitative research (Richardson
2008:474). The qualitative paradigm does not use the term validity and
reliability to assess its quality (Holloway & Wheeler 1996:169). Lincoln
and Guba (1985: 288) in their thought provoking writing, Naturalistic
Inquiry, express contradictory attitude to the positivist paradigm and
propose alternative of the concepts of “internal validity,” “external
validity,” “reliability,” and “objectivity” as “credibility,” “transferability,”
“reliability,” and “confirmability”. These standards are widely used to
assess the “trustworthiness” of qualitative research. Moreover, these
criteria of “trustworthiness” have been cited extensively in many other
fields, such as nursing, midwifery, and education, where qualitative
inquiry is considered to be an ideal way of research. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) also give their argument that, these alternative criteria “have
become the ‘gold standard’ for determining quality in qualitative
research, in much the same way that the randomized controlled trial is

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 148
the gold standard for quantitative research” (Emden et. al 2001:205).
These facets can be presented in the following table:
Table 1: Aspect of “Trustworthiness (Quantitative vs. Qualitative)
Aspect
Scientific term
(Quantitative)
Naturalistic term
(Qualitative)
Truth value
Internal validity
Credibility
Applicability
External validity or
generalizability
Transferability
Consistency
Reliability
Dependability
Neutrality
Objectivity
Confirmability
Source: Guba (1981:80)
In a quantitative research, validity is commonly used for assessing
quality.According to Nachmias & Nachmias (2008),
“Validity is concerned with the question “Am I measuring what I intend
to measure?”…to answer such question researcher must provide
supporting evidence that a measuring instrument does, in fact, measure
the variable that it appears to be measuring” (P. 149).
They also divide validity as “content validity,” “face validity,” “empirical
validity,” “predicted validity, “construct validity,” and “empirical validity”
(Nachmias and Nachmias 2008:149-153). Beyond these divisions, the
controversy comes in case of “internal validity” and “external validity”
which assess the “trustworthiness” of a research.
Internal validity can be procedural, methodological, and interpretive
which indicates the extent to which “the study measures or tests what is
actually intended” (Shanton 2004:64). But in a qualitative researcher an
alternative measurement, “credibility,” is followed instead of “internal
validity”. It is the accuracy of research findings where investigators
attempt to demonstrate that a true picture of the phenomenon under
scrutiny is being presented (Shanton 2004:63). Guba (1981:84-86)
mentions several procedures, such as “prolonged engagement at the
site,” “persistent observation,” “peer debriefing,” “triangulation,” etc to
confirm the “credibility” of a research.
Besides, “external validity/generalizability” may not have direct
application in the qualitative research which means relevance,
auditability and contextual detail of a research study. In respect to

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 149
qualitative inquiry, “transferability” is considered for evaluating the
applicability of a research in the place of “external validity”. It can be
defined as, “they provide sufficient detail of the context of the fieldwork
for a reader to be able to decide whether the prevailing environment is
similar to another situation with which he or she is familiar and whether
the findings can justifiably be applied to the other setting” (Shanton
2004:63).
Here, both “credibility” and “transferability” are required for the quality
measurement of qualitative researcher.
Like “validity,” researchers need to ensure “reliability” of a research
project to insure its quality. ““Reliability” indicates replication,
consistency, and auditability of the findings of an inquiry. It can be
defined as [Reliability] refers to the extent to which a measuring
instrument contains variable errors, that is, errors that appear
inconsistently between observations either during any one measurement
procedure or each time given a variable is measured by the same
instrument. For example, if you measure the length of a desk at two
points in time with the same instrument- say, a ruler- and get slightly
different result, the instrument produces variable errors.” (Nachmias and
Nachmias 2008:154).
In a quantitative research, “test-retest method,” “parallel-forms
technique,” and “split-half method” are widely used to assess reliability.
(Nachmias and Nachmias 2008:155-156). In qualitative research,
“reliability” is used as a synonymous word “dependability” which is
considered to be difficult to measure in a qualitative research where
researchers need to facilitate a future investigation to get the
consistency of their study (Shanton 2004:63). According to Shanton
(2004:71), “if the work were repeated, in the same context, with the
same methods and with the same participants, similar results would be
obtained.” In this case, “overlap methods- stepwise replication,”
“establishing an audit trail,” and “arrange for a dependability audit” are
usually followed to be sure about “dependability” of qualitative research
(Guba 1981:87).
Furthermore, another aspect related to the quality of social researches is
“objectivity” which refers to neutrality, value free, auditability and
reflexivity of a research work. Shanton (2004:72) explains “pattern
associates with objectivity in science with the use of instruments that are
not dependent on human skills and perception.” However, this aspect
may not be employed in qualitative research where researchers’
personal traits may have the chances of involving with the whole
research process. In that case, an alternative concept, “confirmability,”

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 150
may be used in qualitative social inquiries where “researchers must take
steps to demonstrate that findings emerge from the data and not [from]
their predisposition” (Shanton 2004:63). In the same line, Guba
(1981:87) explains “interpretational confirmability” and provides three
criteria to assess it (confirmability). These are: 1) triangulation; 2)
practicing reflexivity; and 3) arrange for a confirmability audit.
The aspects of “trustworthiness” of a qualitative research are presented
in the following table
Table 2: “Provisions that May be Established by a Qualitative
Researcher Wishing to Address Guba’s Four Criteria for
Trustworthiness”
Quality criterion Possible provision made by the researcher
Credibility Adoption of appropriate, well recognized research methods;
Development of early familiarity with culture of participating
establishments;
Random sampling of individuals serving as informants;
Triangulation via use of different methods, different types of
informants and different sites;
Tactics to help ensure honesty in informants;
Iterative questioning in data collection dialogues;
Negative case analysis;
Debriefing sessions between researcher and superiors;
Peer scrutiny of project;
Use of “reflective commentary”;
Description of background, qualifications and experience of the
researcher;
Member checks of data collected and interpretations/theories
formed;
Thick description of phenomenon under scrutiny; and
Examination of previous research to frame findings;
Transferability Provision of background data to establish context of study and
detailed description of phenomenon in question to allow
comparisons to be made.
Dependability Employment of “overlapping methods”; and
In-depth methodological description to allow study to be repeated.
Confirmability Triangulation to reduce effect of investigator bias;
Admission of researcher’s beliefs and assumptions;
Recognition of shortcomings in study’s methods and their potential
effects;
In-depth methodological description to allow integrity of research
results to be scrutinized; and
Use of diagrams to demonstrate “audit trail”.
Source: Shenton (2004:73)
Besides above mentioned criteria, Burns and Grove (1993) propose five
standards of the quality of qualitative research such as, “descriptive
vividness,” “methodological congruence,” “analytical preciseness,”

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 151
“theoretical connectedness,” and “heuristic relevance”. Besides, Munhall
(1994) in her writing, Revisioning Phenomenology: Nursing and Health
Science Research, gives ten criteria for measuring the “trustworthiness”
of qualitative research. These are, “phenomenological nod,”
“reasonableness,” “representativeness,” “recognigibility,” “raised
consciousness,” “readability,” “relevance,” “revelations,” and
“responsibility.” Drawing the explanation of the Linclon and Guba (1985),
Leininger (1994) also proposes six criteria for quality in a qualitative
social inquiry such as, “credibility,” “confirmability,” “meaning-in-context,”
“recurrent patterning,” “saturation,” and “transferability.”
In a nutshell, quality of a qualitative research may depend on the
“soundness” of the research process, “well-foundedness” of the research
techniques, “goodness” of research information, and “wortwileness” of
the whole aspect of research. Along other well discussed criteria, these
dimensions also determine the “trustworthiness” which is standard for
determining quality in qualitative research (Emden 2001:205). Regarding
the “trustworthiness” of a research work, there is a debate based on the
qualitative and quantitative paradigms. In quantitative paradigms,
“validity (external and internal),” “reliability,” and “objectivity” are
considered to be the criteria of “trustworthiness”. On the other hand,
qualitative researchers deny applying these criteria for measuring
“trustworthiness” in qualitative researches. They advocate for alternative
criteria such as, “credibility,” “transferability,” “dependability,” and
“confirmability”. Researchers such as, Linclon and Guba, Shenton and
others discuss the different processes of analyzing these criteria.
Besides, randomized controlled trial is also proposed to be a criterion for
“trustworthiness” of qualitative research. So, “trustworthiness” may be an
essential part of the quality of qualitative researche.
Ethical Issues in a Quality Research
To what extent ethics can be used to ascertain quality of a qualitative
social inquiry? How can the debates over multidimensional ethical
issues be examined to collect sufficient and accurate information and to
produce a quality research? These questions are considerably relevant
to the issue of this paper. Therefore, it focuses on the ethical issues in
aspect of a qualitative research. An authentic research requires ethical
consideration because researchers need to “get into the field” and
collect sufficient data (Goffman 1989:126-130). More specifically, in
order to maintain integrity and validity of a research, ethical issues need
to be considered.
Davides and Dodd (2002:281) conceptualize “ethical issues” as, “ethics
are more than a set of principles of abstract rules that sit as an

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 152
overarching entity guiding our research.” At the time of conducting
research, researchers need to be faithful to social justice and moral
principles and should show respect to the person and do justice to
informed consent (Marshall and Rossman 2011:44). In such a situation,
ethical issues may useful to protect the right and dignity of participants.
Thus, throughout the endeavor of qualitative research, researchers
maintain privacy, anonymity, and right of participants which guarantee
no harm to them. To Nachmias and Nachmias (2008:73-79), informed
consent (competence, voluntarism, full information and comprehension);
privacy (sensitivity of data, setting being observed, and dissemination of
information); anonymity; and confidentiality (deleting of identity, crude
report categories, and micro aggregation) are the primary facets of
research ethics.
In respect to the ontology of a qualitative research, “reality is subjective
and multiple as seen by participants in a study” where researchers need
to understand the contexts of every action (Creswell 1994:4). In such a
situation, ethics are in prime. Sometimes, in a social study, researchers
may dehumanize informants by misleading, evading, and lying and
sometimes they might be dehumanized by the participants.
Researchers, therefore, consider ethics to deal with participants.
Furthermore, in a particular research, subjects may deserve the right to
know what they are getting themselves into the research process (Fine
1993: 270-271). Here, researchers maintain ethics through which they
get guidelines to deal with the issues. According to Glaser and Strauss
(1967, cited in Fine 1993:274), researchers might not be sure about the
subjects in qualitative inquiries. Therefore, they should not pollute
research situation during the investigation.
The epistemological assumptions of a qualitative research also reveal
that, “[a] researcher interacts with that being researched” where
multifaceted external and internal forces may treat the code of ethics of
a social research (Creswell 2994:4). To get detailed explanation of social
realities, analyses of the data collected by qualitative field investigations
are essential. Thus, priority needs to be given to research ethics.
Likewise, public and government concerns in aspect of privacy
protection, change in disciplines and the emergence of new research
entrepreneurships may influence the application of ethical codes in the
contemporary social researches. Overall, in order to ensure ethics in a
research, privacy and confidentiality are important (Hoonaard 2006:262).
Researches in a social research start with institutional ethical guidelines
approved by an ethical committee of the respective institution, to name a
few Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Review Ethics Board (REB).

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 153
These committees suggest principles related to harm, consent, and
anonymity of research subject and mandate guidelines to adequately
deal with informed consent, confidentiality, right to privacy, deception,
and protecting human subject from harm (Ellis 2007:4; Swauger
2011:489). Now-a-days, ‘discipline-specific codes of conduct’ and ‘the
professional standing of research scientist’ govern the ethical status in
the field situations (Haggerty 2004:393). But, during the fieldwork,
researchers may not be able to follow the guidelines of ethical
committees because some ethical questions related to the actual field
situation may arise during the research process which may not be
congruent with the instruction of the ethics committee. Such types of
ethics may be identified as “ethics in practice” (Guillemin and Gillam
2004:261-263; Gonzalez-Lopez 2011:450). Ellis (2007:6) discusses the
‘relational ethics’ involved with research studies. Similarly, Gonzalez-
Lopez (2011:447-461) develops an ethical viewpoint, “mindful ethics”
where researchers should be conscious and alert to the emotional,
physical, and political safety and wellbeing of people participating in the
inquiry. In addition, Cutcliffe and Ramcharan (2002:1000-1008) explain
“ethics-as-process” where they emphasize on balancing of harm and
benefits of individual participants. Along the same line, Swauger
(2011:497-501) discusses the “ethics in representation” and “ethics in
process”. These aspects may not be considered earlier by the ethical
committee at the time of issuing guidelines to deal with ethical issues
during fieldwork.
Furthermore, researches involved with human participants, more likely
undergo tensions related to ethical issues. They, therefore, need to be
careful about the code of ethics related to qualitative research (Guillemin
and Gillman 2004:271). During a field work when researchers go to the
field setting, stay with research subjects, become close to them, build up
rapports, and develop intimate relationships with them to collect
necessary data. What should be their ultimate course of actions if any
unexpected incidence occurs? What ethical consideration may
researchers follow in respect to intimate relationships with participants?
Also, in a real field work, researchers can face some unforeseen
situations where existing guidelines of ethical committees may not
provide sufficient directions (Haggerty 2004:393).
It is widely agreed that sometimes the results of a qualitative research
might be confusing as most of the methods of it are related to the human
beings. As a result, possibilities of discrepancy with the guidelines
provided by ethical committees are very likely. What occurs when the
approved guidelines are not congruent with the actual field situation?
How could informed consent be obtained? Moreover, some cases

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 154
require ongoing consent because after giving consent participants may
be reluctant to provide information. What should a researcher do then?
Is simple consent insufficient? In each attempt, research findings may be
confused with the crude and unethical initiatives. In respect to the
discussed issues, tensions may escalate with the increasing
complexities of the social milieu.
The oscillation in aspect of the association between guidelines provided
by the formal ethical committees and practical process of dealing with it
may cause complexities during data collection. Ethical issues, therefore,
become a part and parcel of qualitative inquiries in this situation.
Besides, in the majority cases, a qualitative research involves with
human subjects. So, it may be useful for researchers to conduct their
research within general ethical goals to ensure respect, protection from
harm, and prevention of embarrassing exposure of the participants
(Swauger 2011:489). Equally, qualitative researches deal with
participants’ life activities and explain the reality from the respondents’
point of view. In such a case, without proper ethical guidelines, research
findings may provide a false account of the social universe. Thus, the
ethical issues are worthwhile in qualitative social inquiry.
According to Guillemin and Gillam (2004:261), tensions related to the
ethical issues are part of a research work, more specifically in the
qualitative social inquiries. In a fieldwork, when the existing framework
does could not fit with the actual social situations and when participants’
interest get priority and their security needs to be ensured, ethics may
pave the ways in such a situation. Researchers should be concerned
about ethical issues which may be related to research background,
procedures, methods, kind of respondents, and types of data. Nachmias
and Nachmias (2008:69) express a similar persuasion, “the sole
objective of the research is to contribute to the development of
systematic and verifiable knowledge”; in such a position, ethics are
matters for a sound and unique qualitative research.
Tensions over ethical issues in a field research may be seen also in the
contemporary qualitative inquiries. As the present society has become
more complex than the previous one, researchers may face multiple
intricacies in dealing with the social reality which cannot be overcome
simply by using the guidelines of the ethics committee. Under such
circumstances, they may consider different types of ethics namely,
“ethics in practice”, “relational ethics”, “mindful ethics”, and “ethics-as-
process”. According to Brinkman (2007, cited in Swauger, 2011:501),
ethical situations cannot be codified or summarized within a universal
pattern. In such a situation, they can apply their own expertise and past

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 155
experiences in addressing ethical issues in a more appropriate manner.
They can also consider both the guidelines of the ethical committees
and their own efficiencies obtained from past examples in prolonged, in-
depth, intimate, and/or frequent contact with the research participants
(Linclon & Guba, 1985, cited in Cutcliffe and Ramcharan, 2002:1005).
Likewise, researches need to be disciplined so that it can balance
between participants’ potential risk and benefits (Cutcliffe and
Ramcharan 2002:1008). Moreover, the relationship should be explicit
about the purpose and value of the researchers.
In short, a quality social research requires appropriate, ethically sound,
and morally strong procedures where ethical issues are important.
Although, institutional ethical committee(s) approves guidelines to meet
the demand of ethics, in actual field research these directions may not
be sufficient as researchers deal with a complex social environments. In
such situations, researchers follow various types of ethics such as,
“relational ethics,” “mindful ethics,” etc. Hence, fitting appropriate ethical
aspect may ensure the quality of a qualitative social inquiry.
Data Collection and Analysis Technique (s)
Besides the “trustworthiness” and “ethical issues,” the qualitative
paradigm proposes diversified ways of collecting data from the very field
of society and also of the processes of analyzing data. The natures of a
qualitative research vary from quantitative research in respect to
“epistemology,” “ontology,” “axiology,” and “methodology” (Creswell
1994:5). Hence, similar techniques may not be useful in both areas to
collect and analyze data. According to Richardson (2008:474), in a
qualitative researcher, researchers commonly speak of the importance
of individual researcher’s skill and aptitudes. In such a situation, several
issues can be considered to identify data collection and analysis
techniques as the parts of a quality social inquiry. Theses are: 1) what
new and different techniques can be employed in qualitative social
inquiries than quantitative research to identify the quality of qualitative
research? 2) how can qualitative data be analyzed? 3) to what extent
can the quality of qualitative data be ensured to come up with a quality
research project? This section concentrates on these issues.
The authentication of data collection techniques and the appropriate
ways of analyzing data may substantiate the process of ensuring quality
of a qualitative researcher. In each and every step, efficiency of
researchers cannot be ignored because, “the more honed the
researcher, the better the possibility of excellent research” (Richardson
2008:474). According to Danzin & Linclon (2000:18), qualitative
research, as “a moment of discovery and rediscovery; a new way of

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 156
looking, interpreting, arguing, and writing,” is debated issue. In such a
situation, “knowledge of the truth” may be easy and error might be
“virtually impossible” if one adopts the precise language about moral and
social consequences” in data collection and data analysis (Clifford &
Marcus 1986, cited in Richardson 2008:475).
In collecting qualitative data, researchers usually used “participant
observation” “in-depth interview,” “ethnographic method,”
“phenomenological interview,” “focus-group interview,” “life history
method,” “narrative inquiry,” “digital story telling,” “interviewing elites,”
“case study,” and “historical method” (Marshall & Rossman 2011:140-
155; Pink 2008:177-178; Flyvbjerg 2006:220; Squaire 2005:92-106;
Nunkoosing 2005:690-692; Foley 2002:469-488; Ellis 1999:673-674;
Griffin 1993:1096-1099; Goffman 1989:125-130; Gilliat-Roy 2011:470-
484). Among these techniques which one can be more applicable? This
query may not have a satisfactory answer. As the nature of qualitative
data are different, such as “structured text” (writings, reports, survey
comments, news articles, books etc.); “unstructured text” (transcription,
interviews, focus groups, conversation); “audio recordings,” music;
“video recordings” (graphics, graphics, photographs, visuals) etc. Each
sort of data may require technique(s). Likewise, research topic, overall
design of research, nature of the field, and, more importantly,
characteristics of respondents can be considered during the selection of
appropriate technique(s) for collecting data. That is, the nature of
research may indicate the appropriate technique(s) for collecting data to
ensure the quality of a qualitative social research.
Likewise, researchers may face difficulties to analyze data collected in a
qualitative fieldwork. In this respect, qualitative researches also differ
from quantitative one. Because, quantitative researches generally follow
fixed processes basing on the distinct epistemological, ontological,
rhetorical, axiological, and methodological positions (Creswell 1994:5-6)
and hence keeps belief on the “objective, accurate, unambiguous,
noncontextual, and nonmetaphoric” aspects (Richardson 2008:475). The
application of quantitative data collection techniques in a qualitative
research may not bear positive results; instead, it may create unintended
consequences in qualitative inquiry. Researchers usually follow several
distinct techniques to analyze data in qualitative researches, such as
“thematic analysis,” “content analysis,” “narrative analysis,” “discourse
analysis,” “grounded theory approach” etc. (Braun & Clarke 2006:78-
105; Burck 2005:244-256; Taylor-Powel & Renner 2003:1-6; Neuendorf
2002:1-23). Through the application of one or more techniques,
researchers try to provide a holistic explanation of qualitative data to
maintain its quality.

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 157
Moreover, data collection and analysis technique(s) are expressed in the
quality writing of a qualitative research because qualitative data/text is
highly complex and merely skilful writing may do justice to this. Likewise,
the contributions of qualitative writings may depend on the ability of
successful balancing between the interpretation of reapondents views
and the real field situation. In this line, it may be necessary for qualitative
researchers to be able to use an assortment of stylistic devices. In
qualitative research, reflexivity is usually considered to be an important
aspect of collecting and analysing qualitative data. This is also included
in the quality criteria of a qualitative social research (Guillemin & Gillam
2004:273-277). Guillemin & Gillam (2004) also suggest three ways of
applying reflexive skills in the practice of qualitative research: 1) “writing
self critical account”, 2) “maintaining a field diary”, 3) “reflecting on
writing style”.
In brief, qualitative and quantitative researches follow different sets of
data collection and data analyzing technique. To put the quality in the
centre, qualitative researchers propose multifaceted data collection
techniques, such as “participant observation,” “in-depth interview,”
“ethnographic method,” “phenomenological interview,” “focus-group
interview,” “life history method,” “narrative inquiry” etc. Besides, several
techniques are also considered to analyze the collected data in a
qualitative research project, to name a few, “thematic analysis,” “content
analysis,” “narrative analysis,” “discourse analysis,” “grounded theory
approach” etc. Along with other indicators of the quality of qualitative
research, these techniques may also be helpful. In a qualitative
research, writing style may effects the quality of the project where skillful
application of reflexivity can substantiate the initiative of ensuring quality
of qualitative research. So, the quality of qualitative research may
explain by the nature and applicability of the techniques used to collect
and analyze qualitative data.
Triangulation and Crystallization
Triangulation and crystallization may not have the direct bearing of the
quality assessment of a qualitative research. Both are often considered
to claim validity of data and data analyses. As the collected data and
analyses of them have considerable significance in ensuring quality of
qualitative research, the issues, triangulation and crystallization, have
been considered in this paper. There is a debate over triangulating the
methods. Denzin and other propose “triangulation” (Creswell 1994:174)
but, Richardson and other emphasis “crystallization or inter-textuality” in
the place of it (Richardson 2008:478). Researches use “combination of
methodologies in the study of same phenomenon” (Silverman 2010:63;

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 158
Creswell 1994:174) which is known as “triangulation”. According to
Creswell (1994),
“The concept triangulation was based on the assumption that any bias
inherent in particular data sources, investigator, and method would be
neutralized when used in conjunction with other data sources,
investigators, and methods…a combined method study is one in which
the researcher uses multiple methods of data collection and analysis.
These methods might be drawn from “within methods” approaches,
[from one paradigm] ... [or] alternatively “between methods” drawn on
qualitative and quantitative data collection procedures (e. g. a survey
and in-depth interview)” (p. 174).
Triangulation may also be used to assess “credibility” and
“transferability” of a qualitative research (Shanton 2004:65; Guba
1981:84, 87). Moreover, it might be used in validating the research data
(Goffman 1989:131). Above all, in a qualitative research “triangulation”
generally confirms the authenticity of research data and findings. On the
contrary, in the post-structuralist era, researchers may not rely on the
“triangulation” which depends on two or more methods. In that case,
they advocate for “crystallization” or “inter-textuality” (Richardson
2008:478) where the authenticity of a text or analysis is verified by
several other texts written about the same subjects. This process of
“inter-textuality” is an alternative way of validity claim may apply in a
qualitative research.
In summary, in the case of quality issues of qualitative researches,
“triangulation” and/or “crystallization may not have direct connection;
rather these techniques may be used to validate data in a qualitative
research. Besides, it may also give the guarantee of a valid qualitative
text constructed through data analysis in a research project where
authenticity of data, analysis, and text are considered to be the important
determinants of the quality of a qualitative research.
Author’s Reflection and Conclusion
The paper deals with the central issue, how quality of a qualitative
research can be ensured and argues that quality of a qualitative
research may be addressed through a combination of several
techniques. It discusses the issues related to the quality of a qualitative
research separately and also compares the important aspects of
qualitative and quantitative researches. In qualitative research, different
issues have different aims regarding the issues of quality where no one
can ascertain the overall quality of a qualitative project. In such a

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 159
situation, the quality of the different issues together can ensure the
overall quality of a qualitative research.
In a qualitative research, “trustworthiness” is often considered to be an
important criterion of quality which depends on other criteria such as,
“credibility,” “transferability,” “dependability,” and “confirmability”. These
fourfold criteria are used to ensure “truth value,” “applicability,”
“consistency,” and “value neutrality” and thus “trustworthiness” of a
qualitative social research. Beyond these frequently used criteria, many
other techniques such as, “phenomenological nod,” “recognigibility,”
“readability,” “relevance,” and “revelations” etc. are also used to explain
the quality of a qualitative research.
Equally, in a qualitative fieldwork, researchers may face complexities at
the time of dealing with fluid social environment constructed by human
subjects. In the practical format, researchers are given guidelines by the
formal ethics board which may not be sufficient in aspect of actual field
situation. At that time, researchers may consider different other ethical
issues, such as “ethics in the process,” “relational ethics,” “mindful
ethics,” “ethics as a process” etc.
Besides, the quality of a quality research may be ensured if the quality of
the techniques of data collection and analyses can be ensured. Various
types of qualitative data are collected through various data collection
techniques, such as “participant observation,” “in-depth interview,”
“ethnographic method,” “focus-group interview,” “life history method,”
“narrative inquiry” “case study,” etc. Besides, qualitative researchers
follow different ways to analyze qualitative data, for example “thematic
analysis,” “content analysis,” “narrative analysis,” “discourse analysis,”
“grounded theory approach” etc. So, the quality of the techniques of
collecting and analyzing qualitative data may substantiate the overall
quality of a qualitative research.
As mentioned earlier, triangulation and crystallization have no direct
impact on the quality issues of a qualitative research. Both methods are
used to assure the authenticity of data, accuracy of the qualitative
analysis, and also “trustworthiness” of a research. In this way, these two
methods substantiate the issues of quality in qualitative research.
Generally, qualitative research involves with five points: 1) “studying the
meaning of people’s lives, under real-world conditions;” 2) “representing
the views and perspectives of the people in a study;” 3) “covering the
contextual conditions within which people live;” 4) “contributing insights
into or emerging concepts that may help to explain human social

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 160
behavior;” and 5) “striving to use multiple sources of evidence rather
than relying on a single source alone” (Yin 2011:7-8). As a result, no
single measure can be appropriate in addressing the issues of quality in
a qualitative research. Because, by utilizing a single criteria we may
make a partial assessment of the outcomes, but to draw a complete
picture of the aspect of quality combination of multiple criteria are
needed. Besides, qualitative researches need to adopt different criteria
that quantitative researches to deal with qualitative issues and this
distinct criteria should be formed based on the core subjects, such as
“credibility,” “transferability,” “reliability,” “confirmability,” “ethical issues,”
“issues related to data collection and analysis,” and “triangulation and
crystallization issues”. In this way, more acceptable criteria for
addressing quality issues of a qualitative research can be developed.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Burck, C. (2005). Comparing Qualitative Research Methodologies for
SystemicResearch: the Use of Grounded Theory, Aiscourse Analysis
and Aarrative Analysis. Journal of Family Therapy, 27(3), 237–262.
Burns, N., & Groves, S. K. (1993). The practice of nursing research:
conduct, critique and utilisation. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Cook, T. (1983). Quasi-experimentation: Its ontology, epistemology, and
methodology. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: strategies for
social research (pp. 78-88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cutcliffe, J. R., & Ramcharan, P. (2002). Leveling the Playing Field?
Exploring the Merits of the Ethics-as-Process Approach for Judging
Qualitative Research Proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 12(7),
1000-1010.
Davides, D., & dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative Research and the Question
of Rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279-289.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and
practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Ellis, E. (2007). Telling Secrets, Revealing Liver: Relational Ethics in
Research With Intimate Others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 3-29.
Emden, C., Hancock, H., Schubert, S., & Darbyshire, P. (2001). A web
of intrigue: the search for quality in qualitative research. Nurse
Education in Practice, 1(4), 204-211.

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 161
Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten Lies of Ethnography: Moral Dilemmas of Field
Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267-294.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study
Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
Foley, D. E. (2002). Critical Ethnography: the Reflexive Turn.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(4), 469-
490.
Gilliat-Ray, S. (2011). "Being there" the experience of shadowing a
British Muslim Hospital Chaplain. Qualitative Research, 11(5), 469-
486.
Goffman, E. (1989). On Fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 18(2), 123-132.
Gonzalez-Lopez, G. (2011). Mindful Ethics: Comments on Informant-
Centered Practices in Sociological Research. Qualitative Sociology,
34(3), 447-461.
Griffin, L. J. (1993). Narrative, Event-Structure Analysis, and Causal
Interpretation in Historical Sociology. American Journal of Sociology,
98(5), 1094-1133.
Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of
Naturalistic Inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology,
29(2), 75-91.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically
Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry,, 10(2), 261-280.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science
Research in the Name of Ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391-
414.
Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 287-
305.
Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses.
Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Hoonnard, W. C. V. D. (2006). New Angles and Tangles in the Ethics
Review of Research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4(1), 261-274.
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative
research studies. In M. J (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research
methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry.. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Marrium, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative
approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive
Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1
| 162
Munhall, P. (1994). Revisioning phenomenology: nursing and health
science research. New York: National League for Nursing.
Munhall, P. L., & Oiler, C. J. (1986). Nursing research: a qualitative
perspective. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nachmias, C. F., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research Methods in the
Social Sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Nunkoosing, K. (2005). The Problems With Interviews. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(5), 698-706.
Pink, S. (2008). An Urban Tour: The Sensory Sociality of Ethnographic
Place-Making. Ethnography, 9(2), 175-196.
Richardson, L. (2008). Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (3rd
ed., pp. 474-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in
Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-
75.
Silverman, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Losangeles:
Sage.
Squire, C. (2005). Reading Narratives. Group Analysis, 38(1), 91-107.
Swauger, M. (2011). The Ethics of Risk, Power, and Representation.
Qualitative Sociology, 34(3), 497-502.
Tayllor-Powel, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing Qualitative Data.
Program Development and Evaluation, 1-10.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research From Start to Finish. New York