Methodological Congruence: The Development of a Tool for Guidance in the Appraisal of Qualitative Research
Location
3033
Format Type
Paper
Format Type
Paper
Start Date
January 2016
End Date
January 2016
Abstract
In an ever-changing research landscape, the future of qualitative research demands a focus on researcher integrity in appraising research. From the vantage point of qualitative research appraisal, one principle stands out because it represents researcher integrity. This principle is known as methodological congruence, defined as a “fit” between research purpose, research question, methodology, data sources/types, and data analysis (Creswell, 2013). As researchers, appraisal of one’s own work begins with the ability to assess the work of others. It requires that the researcher remains true to the chosen philosophical stance and embark on a journey of critical thinking to design, conduct, and appraise, all at the same time. Additionally, it is important to teach the next wave of student scholars about best practices and rigorous qualitative methods. From a developmental perspective, novices must learn to think critically and meet issues of methodological congruence with intention and purpose (Chenail, 2011).
A variety of high quality tools and instruments exist which support and guide in this appraisal process (Cooper, 2011). However, a tool that offers detailed guidance on the five main forms of methodological congruence does not yet exist. In the spirit of transparency, quality, and ethical decision-making, the intent of these researchers was to design and pilot such a tool and seek feedback from the qualitative research community. Through the design and pilot of this research tool that complements current best practices and delivers a pedagogical roadmap that is embedded in ethical intentions, we commit to a shared responsibility that reaches our colleagues, sponsors, and most importantly, the participants whose stories we share (Tracy, 2010).
In this conversation the presenters will describe the process of developing the tool and encourage a reflective dialogue on how to increase practical application of this tool. We welcome your varied perspectives.
References
Chenail, R. (2011). Ten steps for conceptualizing and conducting qualitative research studies in a pragmatically curious manner. The Qualitative Report, 16(6):1713-1730.
Creswell, R. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among the fiveapproaches (3rd ed). Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cooper, R. (2011). Appraising qualitative research reports: a developmental approach. TheQualitative Report, 16(6):1731-1740.
Tracy, S. (2010). Qualitative quality: eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. 16(10):837-851.
Methodological Congruence: The Development of a Tool for Guidance in the Appraisal of Qualitative Research
3033
In an ever-changing research landscape, the future of qualitative research demands a focus on researcher integrity in appraising research. From the vantage point of qualitative research appraisal, one principle stands out because it represents researcher integrity. This principle is known as methodological congruence, defined as a “fit” between research purpose, research question, methodology, data sources/types, and data analysis (Creswell, 2013). As researchers, appraisal of one’s own work begins with the ability to assess the work of others. It requires that the researcher remains true to the chosen philosophical stance and embark on a journey of critical thinking to design, conduct, and appraise, all at the same time. Additionally, it is important to teach the next wave of student scholars about best practices and rigorous qualitative methods. From a developmental perspective, novices must learn to think critically and meet issues of methodological congruence with intention and purpose (Chenail, 2011).
A variety of high quality tools and instruments exist which support and guide in this appraisal process (Cooper, 2011). However, a tool that offers detailed guidance on the five main forms of methodological congruence does not yet exist. In the spirit of transparency, quality, and ethical decision-making, the intent of these researchers was to design and pilot such a tool and seek feedback from the qualitative research community. Through the design and pilot of this research tool that complements current best practices and delivers a pedagogical roadmap that is embedded in ethical intentions, we commit to a shared responsibility that reaches our colleagues, sponsors, and most importantly, the participants whose stories we share (Tracy, 2010).
In this conversation the presenters will describe the process of developing the tool and encourage a reflective dialogue on how to increase practical application of this tool. We welcome your varied perspectives.
References
Chenail, R. (2011). Ten steps for conceptualizing and conducting qualitative research studies in a pragmatically curious manner. The Qualitative Report, 16(6):1713-1730.
Creswell, R. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among the fiveapproaches (3rd ed). Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cooper, R. (2011). Appraising qualitative research reports: a developmental approach. TheQualitative Report, 16(6):1731-1740.
Tracy, S. (2010). Qualitative quality: eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. 16(10):837-851.
Comments
Breakout Session G