A March 2017 article in Research Design Review discussed the Credibility component of the Total Quality Framework (TQF). As stated in the March article, the TQF “offers qualitative researchers a way to think about the quality of their research designs across qualitative methods and irrespective of any particular paradigm or theoretical orientation” and revolves around the four phases of the qualitative research process – data collection, analysis, reporting, and doing something of value with the outcomes (i.e., usefulness). The Credibility piece of the TQF has to do with data collection. The main elements of Credibility are Scope and Data Gathering – i.e., how well the study is inclusive of the population of interest (Scope) and how well the data collected accurately represent the constructs the study set out to investigate (Data Gathering).
The present article briefly describes the second TQF component – Analyzability. Analyzability is concerned with the “completeness and accuracy of the analysis and interpretations” of the qualitative data derived in data collection and consists of two key parts – Processing and Verification. Processing involves the careful consideration of: Read Full Text
The Total Quality Framework (TQF) has been discussed in several articles appearing in Research Design Review. Some of these articles simply reference the TQF in the context of a broader discussion while others – such as “A Quality Approach to the Qualitative Research Proposal” and “Evaluating Quality Standards in a Qualitative Research Literature Review” – speak more directly about applications of the TQF. The TQF is defined as “a comprehensive perspective for creating, managing, and interpreting quality research designs and evaluating the likelihood that a qualitative study will provide information that is valid and useful for the purposes for which the study is intended” (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015, pp. 21-22). In essence, the framework offers qualitative researchers a way to think about the quality of their research designs across qualitative methods as well as a particular paradigm or theoretical orientation. In this way, the TQF is grounded in the core belief that,
if it is agreed that qualitative research can, in fact, serve worthwhile purposes, then logically it would serve those purposes only to the degree that it is done well, regardless of the specific objectives that qualitative researchers strive to address. (p.20)
There are four components to the TQF – Credibility, Analyzability, Transparency, and Usefulness – each pertaining to a distinct aspect of the research process. The schematic (below) shows the Read Full Text
The February 2017 issue of Qualitative Psychology, the journal of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP, a section of Division 5 of the American Psychological Association) starts off with an article titled “Recommendations for Designing and Reviewing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Promoting Methodological Integrity” (Levitt, Motulsky, Wertz, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2017). This paper is a report from the SQIP Task Force on Resources for the Publication of Qualitative Research whose purpose it is “to provide resources to support the design and evaluation of qualitative research” and, by way of this paper, offers “a systematic methodological framework that can be useful for reviewers and authors as they design and evaluate research projects” (p. 7).
Importantly, the “methodological framework” recommended by the authors is decidedly not a procedural playbook and not a checklist or a how-to guide. Giving researchers “rules” to follow Read Full Text