credibility of findings in qualitative research

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 18, Issue 2
• Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Helen Noble 1 ,
• Joanna Smith 2
• 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast , Belfast , UK
• 2 School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield , Huddersfield , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Helen Noble School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Rd, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK; helen.noble{at}qub.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Evaluating the quality of research is essential if findings are to be utilised in practice and incorporated into care delivery. In a previous article we explored ‘bias’ across research designs and outlined strategies to minimise bias. 1 The aim of this article is to further outline rigour, or the integrity in which a study is conducted, and ensure the credibility of findings in relation to qualitative research. Concepts such as reliability, validity and generalisability typically associated with quantitative research and alternative terminology will be compared in relation to their application to qualitative research. In addition, some of the strategies adopted by qualitative researchers to enhance the credibility of their research are outlined.

Are the terms reliability and validity relevant to ensuring credibility in qualitative research?

Although the tests and measures used to establish the validity and reliability of quantitative research cannot be applied to qualitative research, there are ongoing debates about whether terms such as validity, reliability and generalisability are appropriate to evaluate qualitative research. 2–4 In the broadest context these terms are applicable, with validity referring to the integrity and application of the methods undertaken and the precision in which the findings accurately reflect the data, while reliability describes consistency within the employed analytical procedures. 4 However, if qualitative methods are inherently different from quantitative methods in terms of philosophical positions and purpose, then alterative frameworks for establishing rigour are appropriate. 3 Lincoln and Guba 5 offer alternative criteria for demonstrating rigour within qualitative research namely truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. Table 1 outlines the differences in terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research.

• View inline

Terminology and criteria used to evaluate the credibility of research findings

What strategies can qualitative researchers adopt to ensure the credibility of the study findings?

Unlike quantitative researchers, who apply statistical methods for establishing validity and reliability of research findings, qualitative researchers aim to design and incorporate methodological strategies to ensure the ‘trustworthiness’ of the findings. Such strategies include:

Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings; 6

Acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure sufficient depth and relevance of data collection and analysis; 3

Meticulous record keeping, demonstrating a clear decision trail and ensuring interpretations of data are consistent and transparent; 3 , 4

Establishing a comparison case/seeking out similarities and differences across accounts to ensure different perspectives are represented; 6 , 7

Including rich and thick verbatim descriptions of participants’ accounts to support findings; 7

Demonstrating clarity in terms of thought processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations 3 ;

Engaging with other researchers to reduce research bias; 3

Respondent validation: includes inviting participants to comment on the interview transcript and whether the final themes and concepts created adequately reflect the phenomena being investigated; 4

Data triangulation, 3 , 4 whereby different methods and perspectives help produce a more comprehensive set of findings. 8 , 9

Table 2 provides some specific examples of how some of these strategies were utilised to ensure rigour in a study that explored the impact of being a family carer to patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis. 10

Strategies for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research

In summary, it is imperative that all qualitative researchers incorporate strategies to enhance the credibility of a study during research design and implementation. Although there is no universally accepted terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research, we have briefly outlined some of the strategies that can enhance the credibility of study findings.

• Sandelowski M
• Lincoln YS ,
• Barrett M ,
• Mayan M , et al
• Greenhalgh T
• Lingard L ,

Twitter Follow Joanna Smith at @josmith175 and Helen Noble at @helnoble

Competing interests None.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Evidence Produced While Using Qualitative Methodologies Including Research Trustworthiness

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 19 August 2022
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Zachariah Jamal Nazar 2 ,
• Hamde Nazar 3 ,
• Daniel Rainkie 4 ,
• Alla El-Awaisi 2 &
• Myriam ElJaam 2  

107 Accesses

Qualitative research has long been challenged and criticized on issues relating to validity and objectivity. Much debate and discourse have thoroughly explored these concerns and provided coherent reasoning to allay apprehensions and provide researchers with a wealth of advice and guidance on the rigorous conduct and reporting of qualitative studies. Basic principles of trustworthiness are at the core of the evidence and include credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability.

Efforts to achieve these principles need to be invested from conception of the research question, through research design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination. There are validated reporting checklists which offer valuable aide-mémoires or prompts to researchers in this journey. These are also used as standards in the review of research to assess aspects of trustworthiness and subsequently quality of the research and the findings. This chapter includes a summary of primary design techniques that aim to improve “trustworthiness” of qualitative research which, if adopted, contribute toward generating evidence of greater value and potential impact.

There are other recognized strategies that can be used as tools by researchers in their endeavor to convince readers, reviewers, and potentially decision-makers of the true value of their work. It is notable that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, researchers are urged to be cognizant of the importance of coherency and transparency in the approach, conduct, and reporting of their research to ensure it is best considered, appreciated, and utilized to inform policy and practice. Although this chapter provides an overview and description of tools and strategies to enhance trustworthiness of qualitative research, it is acknowledged that each would require a chapter in its own right to capture the theoretical evolution of these concepts and fully educate the reader. The chapter does not include examples from the pharmacy literature where the criteria have been applied, nor does it provide a comprehensive description of the competing viewpoints of establishing quality in the published literature. Therefore, it is recommended that qualitative researchers consider the following information as a research toolbox, where they are likely to need to consult more detailed manuals of the individual tools in order to fully appreciate their utility and application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Amin MEK, Nørgaard LS, Cavaco AM, Witry MJ, Hillman L, Cernasev A, Desselle SP. Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2020;16(10):1472–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Atkinson P, Pugsley L. Making sense of ethnography and medical education. Med Educ. 2005;39(2):228–34.

Black AL, Crimmins G, Dwyer R, Lister V. Engendering belonging: thoughtful gatherings with/in online and virtual spaces. Gend Educ. 2020;32(1):115–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1680808 .

Bowen GA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res. 2008;8(1):137–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107085301 .

Clandinin DJ. Narrative inquiry: a methodology for studying lived experience. Res Stud Music Educ. 2006;27(1):44–54.

Collingridge DS, Gantt EE. The quality of qualitative research. Am J Med Qual. 2008;23(5):389–95.

Converse M. Philosophy of phenomenology: how understanding aids research. Nurse Res. 2012;20(1):28.

Dagnachew N, Meshesha SG, Mekonen ZT. A qualitative exploration of barriers in accessing community pharmacy services for persons with disability in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross sectional phenomenological study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:467. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06488-z .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2017.

Google Scholar  

Elo S, Kääriäinen M, Kanste O, Pölkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngäs H. Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633 .

Frambach JM, van der Vleuten CPM, Durning SJ. AM last page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research. Acad Med. 2013;88(4):552. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828abf7f .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fudge N, Swinglehurst D. ‘It’s all about patient safety’: an ethnographic study of how pharmacy staff construct medicines safety in the context of polypharmacy. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e042504.

Gephart Jr RP. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of management journal. 2004;47(4):454–62.

Giacomini M, Cook DJ. Qualitative research. In: Guyatt GH, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, editors. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill; 2016. p. 1–14.

Given LM. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008.

Book   Google Scholar  

Guba EG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educ Technol Res Dev. 1981;29:75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777 .

Hagood MC, Skinner EN. Moving beyond data transcription: rigor as issue in representation of digital literacies. Lit Res Theory Method Pract. 2015;64(1):429–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336915617600 .

Joffe H, Yardley L. Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks DF, Yardley L, editors. Research methods for clinical and health psychology. Sage; 2003. p. 56–68.

Johnson JL, Adkins D, Chauvin S. A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(1):7120. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120 .

Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):120–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 .

Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45(3):214–22.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kruijtbosch M, Göttgens-Jansen W, Floor-Schreudering A, van Leeuwen E, Bouvy ML. Moral dilemmas of community pharmacists: a narrative study. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40(1):74–83.

Kvale S. Validation and generalization of interview knowledge. In: Doing interviews. Sage; 2007. p. 121–9.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lau SR, Traulsen JM. Are we ready to accept the challenge? Addressing the shortcomings of contemporary qualitative health research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13(2):332–8.

Leyva-Moral JM, Palmieri PA, Loayza-Enriquez BK, Vander Linden KL, Elias-Bravo UE, Guevara-Vasquez GM, Davila-Olano LY, Aguayo-Gonzalez MP. ‘Staying alive’ with antiretroviral therapy: a grounded theory study of people living with HIV in Peru. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(10):e006772.

Liao H, Hitchcock J. Reported credibility techniques in higher education evaluation studies that use qualitative methods: a research synthesis. Eval Program Plann. 2018;68:157–65.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1982) Establishing dependability and confirmability in naturalistic inquiry through an audit. In: Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. March 19–23, 1982. New York [online]: Eric.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1985.

MacLure K, Stewart D. A qualitative case study of ehealth and digital literacy experiences of pharmacy staff. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2018;14(6):555–63.

MacPhail C, Khoza N, Abler L, Ranganathan M. Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qual Res. 2016;16:198–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577012 .

Majid U, Vanstone M. Appraising qualitative research for evidence syntheses: a compendium of quality appraisal tools. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(13):2115–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318785358 .

Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 1995;311(6997):109–12.

Mills A, Durepos G, Wiebe E. Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage; 2010. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397 .

Morse J. Reframing rigor in qualitative inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 5th ed. Sage; 2018. p. 1373–409.

Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18(2):34–5.

O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 .

O’Connor C, Joffe H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:160940691989922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220 .

Ormston R, Spencer L, Barnard M, Snape D. The foundations of qualitative research. Qual Res Pract. 2014;2(7):52–5.

Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

Ponterotto JG. Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept thick description. Qual Rep. 2006;11(3):538–49.

Pratt JM, Yezierski EJ. A novel qualitative method to improve access, elicitation, and sample diversification for enhanced transferability applied to studying chemistry outreach. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2018;19(2):410–30.

Pyett PM. Validation of qualitative research in the “real world”. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(8):1170–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303255686 .

Rathbone A, Nazar H, Harburn J, Todd A, Husband AK. Exploring undergraduate pharmacy student experiences of learning human anatomy using cadaveric specimens. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(8):7103. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7103 .

Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 .

Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012.

Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22(2):63–75.

Smith B. Generalizability in qualitative research: misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2018;10(1):137–49.

Stoner JB. Obtaining confirmability in qualitative research. In: Obaikor FE, Bakken JP, Rotatori AF, editors. Current issues and trends in special education: research, technology, and teacher preparation. Wagon Lane: Emerald Group; 2010. p. 28–37.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010;16(10):837–51.

Van Manen M. Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge; 2016.

Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe LV, O’Brien BC, Rees CE. Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ. 2017;51(1):40–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13124 .

Watling CJ, Lingard L. Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE guide no. 70. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):850–61.

Witry MJ, Doucette WR. Community pharmacists, medication monitoring, and the routine nature of refills: a qualitative study. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2014;54(6):594–603. https://doi.org/10.1331/JAPhA.2014.14065 .

Wu W, Hall AK, Braund H, Bell CR, Szulewski A. The development of visual expertise in ECG interpretation: an eye-tracking augmented re situ interview approach. Teach Learn Med. 2020;33:258–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1844009 .

Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Sage; 2009.

Yong FR, Hor SY, Bajorek BV. A participatory research approach in community pharmacy research: the case for video-reflexive ethnography. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021;18:2157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.04.013 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinical Pharmacy and Practice Department, College of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Zachariah Jamal Nazar, Alla El-Awaisi & Myriam ElJaam

School of Pharmacy, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Hamde Nazar

Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Daniel Rainkie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachariah Jamal Nazar .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Nazar, Z.J., Nazar, H., Rainkie, D., El-Awaisi, A., ElJaam, M. (2022). Evidence Produced While Using Qualitative Methodologies Including Research Trustworthiness. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_76-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_76-1

Received : 26 March 2022

Accepted : 07 April 2022

Published : 19 August 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What We Offer

With a comprehensive suite of qualitative and quantitative capabilities and 55 years of experience in the industry, Sago powers insights through adaptive solutions.

• Recruitment
• Communities
• Methodify® Automated research
• QualBoard® Digital Discussions
• QualMeeting® Digital Interviews
• Global Qualitative
• Global Quantitative
• In-Person Facilities
• Research Consulting
• Europe Solutions
• Neuromarketing Tools
• Trial & Jury Consulting

Who We Serve

Form deeper customer connections and make the process of answering your business questions easier. Sago delivers unparalleled access to the audiences you need through adaptive solutions and a consultative approach.

• Consumer Packaged Goods
• Financial Services
• Media Technology
• Medical Device Manufacturing
• Marketing Research

With a 55-year legacy of impact, Sago has proven we have what it takes to be a long-standing industry leader and partner. We continually advance our range of expertise to provide our clients with the highest level of confidence.​

• Global Offices
• Partnerships & Certifications
• News & Media
• Researcher Events

Sago Announces Launch of Sago Health to Elevate Healthcare Research

Sago Launches AI Video Summaries on QualBoard to Streamline Data Synthesis

Sago Executive Chairman Steve Schlesinger to Receive Quirk’s Lifetime Achievement Award

Drop into your new favorite insights rabbit hole and explore content created by the leading minds in market research.

• Case Studies
• Knowledge Kit

Breaking the Silence on Women’s Health: From Perception to Truth

The Swing Voter Project Pennsylvania: April 2024

• Get in touch

• Account Logins

The Importance of Establishing Credibility in Qualitative Research

• Resources , Blog

Key Takeaways:

• It’s essential to establish credibility in all of your qualitative research projects early on to have your findings considered valuable.
• Strategies to build credibility in your qualitative research include triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing, thick description, reflexivity, saturation, and external audits.
• Addressing issues such as bias, poor clarity, or lack of diversity in qualitative research projects also helps improve your overall research process.

Qualitative research is a type of research that involves exploring the subjective experiences and meanings of individuals. Unlike quantitative research focusing on measurable variables, qualitative research relies on data gathered through observation, interviews , and other methods to provide insight into complex human phenomena. However, the credibility of qualitative research can be questioned if the researcher fails to establish its trustworthiness. Therefore, establishing credibility in qualitative research cannot be overstated.   

This article aims to explore the significance of credibility in qualitative research , define the term, and discuss strategies for establishing credibility in research. By understanding the importance of credibility, you can ensure your data is trustworthy, your results are reliable, and your research is valid. Ultimately, this will contribute to improving the overall quality of qualitative research.  

In this Article:

Understanding credibility in qualitative research, triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing.

• Thick Descrip tion

Reflexivity

External audits, need qualitative research you can trust.

Book a consultation with our team to find the high-quality solutions you need for your next project.

Request a consultation

Credibility is fundamental to any qualitative research study as the bedrock of reliable and trustworthy findings. Credibility refers to the degree to which your research can be deemed responsible and accurate. It safeguards against subjective experiences, emotions, and perspectives that may otherwise obscure the true nature of your research subject.  

It’s important to note that credibility and validity are two separate concepts, although they are often conflated. While validity refers to the extent to which your research measures what it claims to measure, credibility deals with the trustworthiness of your data collection and analysis methods. In other words, credibility is a measure of how well you can establish the accuracy and reliability of your findings.  

If your study lacks credibility, your findings will be dismissed as unreliable or unimportant. This is particularly relevant in qualitative research, where the subjective nature of your results may make them more susceptible to skepticism. However, several methods exist to establish credibility in your study, which we’ll explore more closely below.  

Prioritizing credibility in your qualitative research builds trust with your participants and fellow researchers and enhances your contribution to your field. Furthermore, your reliable and accurate findings help advance the body of knowledge in your area of study. Therefore, it is essential to remember that credibility is vital to conducting impactful and trustworthy qualitative research.  

Ultimately, the importance of credibility cannot be overstated in qualitative research, as it is the foundation for producing high-quality research that makes a difference in the world.  

Building C redibility in Q ualitative R esearch: Effective S trategies

Qualitative research can provide valuable insights and understanding of complex social phenomena. However, the credibility of qualitative research findings is often questioned due to the subjective nature of data collection and analysis. To address this issue, there are various strategies available to establish the credibility of your research.   

T riangulation is a powerful and effective strategy that significantly enhances the credibility of qualitative research. This technique involves using multiple sources or methods to collect and analyze data, thereby increasing the rigor and trustworthiness of the research findings. By combining different sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and focus groups, you can cross-check your results and ensure that your findings are consistent and reliable.  

This approach also helps to identify potential biases or limitations in the research and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Employing triangulation allows you to ensure your research is based on diverse perspectives and experiences, strengthening the credibility and impact of your findings.  

Another strategy used to build credibility is member checking. This is a powerful tool that validates the data’s accuracy and promotes a collaborative relationship between the researcher and the participants. This approach allows the participants to have a say in the research process, and their feedback is valuable in confirming the accuracy of the research findings.  

Member checking is done in various ways, such as sharing transcripts, summaries, or the entire research report with the participants. The participants can then review the information and provide feedback to you on any discrepancies, inaccuracies, or missing data. This process helps establish credibility and builds trust and rapport between the researcher and the participants.  

Additionally, member checking allows the participants to clarify or expand on their experiences, which can further enhance the richness and depth of the data.  

Peer debriefing is a valuable strategy for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research. It involves enlisting the help of other researchers, who are experts in the field, to review and provide feedback on the research process and findings. This process of critical evaluation helps to strengthen the research by identifying any weaknesses, biases, or limitations that may exist.  

Peer debriefing is an effective tool for ensuring that the data collected is accurate, relevant, and reflects the participants’ experiences.   

It’s important to note that peer debriefing is not just limited to reviewing research findings, but also includes evaluating the research process. This consists of the methodology, sampling strategy, and data collection techniques. By involving other researchers in this process, the research can be conducted with due diligence and rigor, ultimately increasing the overall quality of the study.  

Thick Description

Thick description is a qualitative research strategy that provides a comprehensive and detailed description of the research setting and participants. This approach helps you better understand the context of your project, including the cultural, historical, and social factors that may influence the phenomenon under study. The help of detailed descriptions of the research context and participants also ensures your findings are grounded in the realities of the social world you are studying.  

Thick descriptions also help you identify and explore your research topic’s complexities and nuances. For example, suppose you are studying the experiences of immigrants in a particular community; you may use thick descriptions to provide a detailed account of the cultural and social factors that shape their experiences. This helps uncover underlying patterns and themes that may not be immediately apparent and provides a deeper understanding of the respondents.  

Researchers’ biases and perspectives can influence the research process and findings in qualitative research, compromising the study’s credibility. Reflexivity is a strategy that aims to address this issue by encouraging you to reflect on your own biases and perspectives and account for them in the research process. This is achieved through keeping a research journal or memo, where you can reflect on your experiences, assumptions, and biases that may impact the research. Being transparent about your preferences and perspectives makes the research process more credible and trustworthy from the outset.  

Furthermore, reflexivity can lead to new insights and perspectives that may not have been considered otherwise. By acknowledging and accounting for your biases and perspectives, the research process becomes more transparent, and the findings are more trustworthy. Reflexivity also helps you build stronger relationships with participants by showing a willingness to listen and learn from their perspectives.  

Saturation is a crucial strategy in qualitative research to establish that the data collected is thorough and complete. In this strategy, you continue to collect data until you reach a point where no new information or insights are being revealed, indicating that you have reached saturation.   

The concept of saturation is fundamental in studies involving complex or nuanced phenomena with multiple perspectives. In such cases, reaching saturation helps confirm you comprehensively understand the studied topic. Saturation also allows you to identify and address any gaps in the data, which helps improve the overall quality of the research.  

Furthermore, reaching saturation increases the credibility and rigor of qualitative research, demonstrating a systematic and rigorous approach to data collection and analysis.

External audits are another useful strategy in building credibility and rigor in qualitative research. Independent third parties objectively evaluate the research process and findings, which helps ensure the investigation is conducted ethically and transparently. This also helps identify potential biases or limitations in the research and confirm that the findings are valid and reliable.   

External audits are critical in fields where research results can significantly impact policy or practice, such as healthcare or education. Reviews by third parties provide confidence that resulting policies and procedures are evidence-based and effective.  

Establishing credibility in qualitative research is essential for producing high-quality and reliable findings. To achieve credibility, you must use appropriate data collection and analysis methods, ensure transparency and clarity in the research process, and employ rigorous strategies for evaluating the quality of the research. By doing so, you enhance your potential to inform decision-making processes and advance knowledge in your field.   

Building credibility in your qualitative research is critical. It is a formality and a vital step towards producing trustworthy and valuable research that makes a difference in society.  

If you’re looking for reliable, high-quality quantitative and qualitative research solutions, Sago has an option to suit your needs. Our team is committed to helping you obtain the most accurate and reliable data possible, whether you need qualitative research facilities , recruitment , or digital tools .    

Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you achieve your research goals with confidence and accuracy.  

Build Credibility in Your Qual Research

Work with a trusted partner to establish credibility in your next qual project.

A New Generation Is Born: Meet Gen C

Revolutionizing Healthcare Research: A Q&A With Industry Experts

The Deciders April 2024: Michigan Voters in Union Households

OnDemand: Navigating the Dynamic Future of Qualitative Research

How Connecting with Gen C Can Help Your Brand Grow

Quantifying Digital Detox Experiences Across the Globe

Digital Detox: How Different Generations Navigate Social Media Breaks

Building Trust Through Inclusive Healthcare Research Recruitment

The Swing Voter Project Wisconsin: March 2024

Take a deep dive into your favorite market research topics

How can we help support you and your research needs?

BEFORE YOU GO

Have you considered how to harness AI in your research process? Check out our on-demand webinar for everything you need to know