Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Qualitative Health Research
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barbour, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barbour, R. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Newfound Credibility of Qualitative Research? Tales of Technical Essentialism and Co-Option

Rosaline S. Barbour

School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dundee, Scotland.

Qualitative research is no longer the "poor relation" to quantitative research that it has been in the past. However, it is important to monitor the manner in which it is becoming incorporated into the mainstream. In this article, the author examines current dangers and challenges by critically reviewing current developments affecting our own research practice. It is argued that technical essentialism (including the co-option of grounded theory) characterizes many responses to qualitative research. The author concludes by suggesting that our own everyday research practice, involving teaching and supervision, provides an opportunity to advance debates about rigor by allowing us to formulate a considered response that respects both the complexities and the unique contribution that qualitative research can make.

Key Words: checklists • constant comparative method • critical appraisal • grounded theory

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 13, No. 7, 1019-1027 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1049732303253331
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


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
M. Dixon-Woods, S. Bonas, A. Booth, D. R. Jones, T. Miller, A. J. Sutton, R. L. Shaw, J. A. Smith, and B. Young
How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective
Qualitative Research, February 1, 2006; 6(1): 27 - 44.
[Abstract] [PDF]