Qualitative Health Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

The Diabetes Educator

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sparkes, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sparkes, A. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 538-552 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/104973230101100409

Myth 94: Qualitative Health Researchers will Agree about Validity

Andrew C. Sparkes

Qualitative Research Unit in the School of Sport and Health Sciences at Exeter University, A.C.Sparkes{at}exeter.ac.uk

In a recent editorial, Morse warned against qualitative health researchers turning their backs on fundamental concepts such as validity and called on them to think, reconsider, and undo. With a view to stimulating further dialogue, in this article the author explores where this thinking, reconsidering, and undoing might take us in relation to the concept of validity. Four perspectives on this issue are presented for discussion: the replication, parallel, diversification, and letting-go perspectives. Each is seen as worthy of consideration in its own right, and it is suggested that coexistence of the perspectives is possible despite their differences. The implications of various forms of coexistence are discussed in relation to the problem of criteria. It is recommended that qualitative health researchers learn to judge a variety of approaches in different but appropriate ways.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Qual Health ResHome page
M. Koro-Ljungberg
Validity and Validation in the Making in the Context of Qualitative Research
Qual Health Res, July 1, 2008; 18(7): 983 - 989.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
D. J. Cohen and B. F. Crabtree
Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations
Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2008; 6(4): 331 - 339.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative ResearchHome page
J. D. Bringer, L. H. Johnston, and C. H. Brackenridge
Maximizing Transparency in a Doctoral Thesis1: The Complexities of Writing About the Use of QSR*NVIVO Within a Grounded Theory Study
Qualitative Research, August 1, 2004; 4(2): 247 - 265.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qual Health ResHome page
P. M. Pyett
Validation of Qualitative Research in the "Real World"
Qual Health Res, October 1, 2003; 13(8): 1170 - 1179.
[Abstract] [PDF]