Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Peck, E.
Right arrow Articles by Secker, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Peck, E.
Right arrow Articles by Secker, J.
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?

Piths, Pearls, and Provocation

Quality Criteria for Qualitative Research: Does Context Make a Difference?

Edward Peck

Jenny Secker

Although qualitative research has considerable strengths both in assessing the effectiveness of organizational models of health care provision and in contributing to their development, its impact on local and national decision making in the United Kingdom appears to be negligible. This article examines three obstacles to the acceptance of qualitative research, illustrating some ways around them drawn from recent research at the Centre for Mental Health Services Development. However, our illustrations throw into relief the potential for tensions between the pragmatic world of health care management and the quality and integrity of qualitative research. The authors, therefore, examine these tensions with reference to recent work on the development of quality criteria and discuss some of the solutions they have attempted.

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, 552-558 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/104973299129121965
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
 Journal of Information ScienceHome page
L. Chin-Feng, T. Hsien-Tang, and F. Chen-Su
A logic deduction of expanded means-end chains
Journal of Information Science, February 1, 2006; 32(1): 5 - 16.
[Abstract] [PDF]