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
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 Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stige, B.
Right arrow Articles by Midtgarden, T.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stige, B.
Right arrow Articles by Midtgarden, T.
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?

Toward an Agenda for Evaluation of Qualitative Research

Brynjulf Stige

University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, brynjulf.stige{at}grieg.uib.no

Kirsti Malterud

Unifob Health, Bergen, Norway

Torjus Midtgarden

University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Evaluation is essential for research quality and development, but the diversity of traditions that characterize qualitative research suggests that general checklists or shared criteria for evaluation are problematic. We propose an approach to research evaluation that encourages reflexive dialogue through use of an evaluation agenda. In proposing an evaluation agenda we shift attention from rule-based judgment to reflexive dialogue. Unlike criteria, an agenda may embrace pluralism, and does not request consensus on ontological, epistemological, and methodological issues, only consensus on what themes warrant discussion. We suggest an evaluation agenda—EPICURE—with two dimensions communicated through use of two acronyms.The first, EPIC, refers to the challenge of producing rich and substantive accounts based on engagement, processing, interpretation, and (self-)critique. The second—CURE—refers to the challenge of dealing with preconditions and consequences of research, with a focus on (social) critique, usefulness, relevance, and ethics. The seven items of the composite agenda EPICURE are presented and exemplified. Features and implications of the agenda approach to research evaluation are then discussed.

Key Words: checklists • communication • epistemology • qualitative methods • general • research evaluation

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 19, No. 10, 1504-1516 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1049732309348501
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?