Characteristics of a Good Qualitative Research
Credibility
Credibility is an essential criterion for judging the soundness of qualitative research. This criterion entails establishing the capacity of qualitative research results to be believable from the dimension of research participants (Guba and Lincoln, 1981, p.61: Barbour, 2003, p.1019). From the perspective of credibility, the main purpose served by qualitative research is to ensure that the participants understand the phenomenon of interest.
Dependability
Dependability in qualitative research places an immense emphasis that research needs to take into consideration the changing contexts under which the research is conducted. In this context, Guba and Lincoln reckon, “the research is responsible for describing the changes that occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the study” (1981, p.87). For the inferences to be dependable, it is crucial for them to be valid. Validity can both be internal and external (Avis, 1995, p.1203). Validity is the degree of approximation of truth or falsity of various proportions made in the research (Rolfe, 2006, p.307).
Transferability
Transferability is the extent to which people may generalize the results realized to apply to other contexts. This is possible through conducting an intensive task in context description coupled with various assumptions utilized and implied by the research.
Impacts and Importance
For qualitative research to amount into quality work, a vivid description of the impacts and importance of the research is necessary (Yardley, 2000, p.223). Impact refers to the effects that the research results could have on the field under study. On the other hand, importance infers the relevance of the research in amplification of the knowledge base of the field under study.
Reflexivity
Essentially, researchers are reflexive if they are aware and can account for the multiple influences that their research process may have. This is done by providing an explanation of the meanings that their research topic has on their part coupled with giving the indications of people targeted by their findings (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008, p. 331).
Theoretical, Procedural Rigor, and Ethical Considerations
In deriving the criteria for rigorous research, people have to negotiate for a common ground since the province of quantitative research is not uniform. Qualitative research needs to be ethical and important besides having coherent and clear articulation while not negating rigor coupled with appropriate methods (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008, p.333). Ethics in research is taken care of by conducting research in a manner that is respectable (Angen, 2000, p.378), honest (Hall & Stevens, 1991, p.17), and humane (Altheide & Johnson, 1994, p.485). It needs to lie within the values of collaboration, service, and empathy (Kuzel et al., 1994, p.372).
Research Design and Methodology
Mohr, Webb, and Harris conducted qualitative research on whether consumers expect companies to be socially responsible. Their main aim was to determine the impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. In the research, they considered in-depth interviews as the main way of generating primary data. In their research, this methodology of in-depth interviews has been explicitly addressed and explained by Mohr, Webb, and Harris (2001, p.54). In this perspective, their explanation of the general method of research is cute. Indeed, such an explanation is vital since, for a quality in-depth interview, the researcher makes use of usual methods stipulated in fieldwork and also in the interview to enhance the credibility of various respondents coupled with avoiding biasing their respondents and also their observations during the process of conducting the in-depth interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, pp 5-6). To generalize the results of their research, the researchers went through all the transcripts generated during the in-depth interview together to pinpoint common themes. According to Beck (1993), these requirements are vividness, methodological congruence, descriptiveness, heuristic relevance, analytic preciseness, and theoretical correctness (p.263). The necessity of identification of themes that are common in the research results is critical since a quality in-depth interview deserves being neutral and consistent (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, p.23: Jones, 2002, p.463).
Critique of the Qualitative Research Paper
Credibility Critique
According to the work of Spigle (1994), credible qualitative research in the field of consumer behavior needs “a different agenda which includes an interpretive and empirical research that studies consumers’ experience and behavior through participants’ observation of data gathered in in-depth interviews” (p.492). Fortunately, the methodology of Mohr, Webb, and Harri’s research takes these aspects.
Transferability Critique
Transferability of the inferences of the research is one of the subtle traits of high-quality qualitative research. Arguably, this makes the research incredibly consistent with the requirements of qualitative researches that demand such researches to have PRL levels of reliability ranging from 0.8 to o.96. Consequently, the method is transferable in that the results can be generalized to various contests including academics and policymaking among others.
Dependability Critique
Mohr, Webb, and Harris’s research is not immune to the challenges of validity and hence dependability. Arguably, qualitative research lacks validity due to the need of incorporating both subjectivity and rigor coupled with creativity in the process of scientific research (Whittermore, Chase & Mandle, 2001, p.522). For this purpose, “to improve the validity of the coding, when the coders disagreed, the researchers determined the final coding through group discussion” (Mohr, Webb & Harris, 2001, p.54).
Reflexivity Critique
The research paper has incredible reflexive aspects. In their research, the authors claim that their research draws implications for “academics, marketing practitioners and public policymakers” (Mohr, Webb & Harris, 2001, p.46). These are the target groups of the findings and recommendations of the research.
Theoretical and Procedural Rigour and Ethical Considerations
Theoretical consideration is given by a thorough introspection of the literature review of the topic under research. This is critical information of the foundation of the research and in helping to identify the gaps that the research seeks to fill. On the other hand, rigor is crucial for systematic qualitative research (Fossey et al., 2002, p.720: Finlay, 2006, p.321: Rolfe, 2006, p.305). Having developed this aspect amply, the research paper considered theoretical, procedural, and ethical considerations.
Impact and Importance Critique
Although the authors specifically stated that the impact and importance of their study were to help in capturing “the thought process that each respondent goes through in deciding what he or she thinks of socially responsible or irresponsible companies and how to respond via consumer or investment decisions” (Mohr, Webb & Harris, 2001, p.54). No vivid discussion of the same is provided. In this context, their research fails to comply with the demand of qualitative research, which requires a thorough discussion of the same.
Limitations of the Method
Overall Comments on the Significance and Implications of the Method
A thorough treatment of the strengths and limitations of the research is not given any consideration. This constitutes a key drawback to the quality of the research in the sense that setting limits aids in specifying the parameter for the assessment of social corporate responsibility (Groenland, 2002, p.308). Amid the discussion of the above drawbacks of the research, it is imperative to note that, overall, the methodology deployed pays incredible attention in both time and space to describe the procedure of data collection and its subsequent analysis. This is particularly significant in the endeavor to raise the levels of dependability and reliability of the analysis process coupled with the recommendations and conclusions of the research.
Reference
Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in Qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Angen, J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Quality Health Research, 10 (3), 378-395.
Avis, M. (1995). Valid arguments? A consideration of the concept of validity in establishing the credibility of research findings. Journal of advanced Nursing, 22(6), 1203-1209.
Barbour, S. (2003).The newfound credibility of qualitative research? Tales of technical essentialism and co-option. Quality Health Research 13(7), 1019-1027.
Beck, C. (1993). Qualitative Research: The Evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and audibility. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(1), 262-266.
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2008). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations. Criteria for Qualitative Research, 6(4), 331-339.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, cannons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 1-20.
Finlay, L. (2006). Rigor, Ethical Integrity or Artistry. Reflexively Reviewing Criteria For Evaluating Qualitative Research. British Journal of occupational Therapy, 69(7), 319-326.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(1), 717–732.
Groenland, E. (2002). Qualitative Research to Validate the RQ Dimensions. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4), 308-315.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, M., & Stevens, E. (1991). Rigor in feminist research. ANS Adv Nursing Science, 13(3), 16-29.
Jones, S. (2002). (Re) Writing the world: methodological strategies and issues in qualitative research. Journal of College Student’s Development, 43(4), 461-473.
Kuzel, J., &Engel, D., Addison, B., & Bogdewic, P. (1994). Desirable features of qualitative research. Fam Pract Res Journal. 14(4), 369-378.
Mohr, A., Webb, J., & Harris, E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigor: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310.
Spigle, S. (1994). Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 491-503.
Whittermore, R., Chase, S., & Mandle, C. (2001). Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537.
Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychological Health, 15(3), 215-228.