Qualitative Research Standards Reference
This reference provides assessment criteria for qualitative and mixed-methods research papers. Read this when the paper under review uses qualitative methodology (interviews, ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenology, narrative analysis, etc.).
When to Apply
Apply these standards when the paper's methodology section describes:
- Qualitative data collection (interviews, observations, focus groups, document analysis)
- Qualitative data analysis (coding, thematic analysis, grounded theory, discourse analysis)
- Mixed methods with a qualitative component
- Theoretical or conceptual papers building on qualitative evidence
Do NOT apply to purely quantitative or computational papers.
SRQR-Based Assessment (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research)
The following items are adapted from the SRQR checklist (O'Brien et al., 2014). Not every item applies to every paper — use judgment based on the specific methodology.
Research Design Transparency
| Item | What to Check | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Paradigm statement | Is the philosophical/epistemological stance stated? | Missing entirely in a methods-heavy qualitative paper |
| Method justification | Why was this qualitative approach chosen over alternatives? | "We used qualitative methods" with no further justification |
| Researcher positioning | Does the author acknowledge their relationship to the topic/participants? | No reflexivity statement in sensitive research |
Sampling & Data Collection
| Item | What to Check | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Sampling strategy | Is the sampling approach described and justified? (purposive, theoretical, snowball, etc.) | "We interviewed 15 participants" with no sampling rationale |
| Participant description | Are participant characteristics adequately described? | No demographic or contextual information |
| Data saturation | Is there evidence or discussion of data saturation? | No mention of when/why data collection stopped |
| Data collection tools | Are interview guides, observation protocols, or other tools described? | "Semi-structured interviews were conducted" with no further detail |
| Data collection context | Are setting, timing, and duration described? | No contextual information about data collection |
Data Analysis
| Item | What to Check | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis approach | Is the specific analysis method named and described? | "Data were analyzed qualitatively" (too vague) |
| Coding process | Are coding stages described (open, axial, selective / initial, focused)? | "We used NVivo for coding" with no process detail |
| Code examples | Are example codes or themes illustrated with data excerpts? | Themes presented without supporting evidence |
| Analyst involvement | How many researchers coded? Was there intercoder reliability? | Single coder with no verification strategy |
| Iteration description | How did analysis evolve? Were codes revised? | Linear process description with no iteration |
Trustworthiness & Rigor
| Strategy | Description | When Expected |
|---|---|---|
| Member checking | Participants reviewed findings | Strongly expected for interview-based studies |
| Triangulation | Multiple data sources, methods, or analysts | Expected for complex phenomena |
| Audit trail | Documentation of analytical decisions | Expected for grounded theory and case studies |
| Peer debriefing | External review of analysis process | Good practice, not always required |
| Negative case analysis | Deliberately seeking disconfirming evidence | Expected for theory-building studies |
| Thick description | Rich contextual detail enabling transferability | Expected for ethnographic and case study work |
Reflexivity Assessment
Reflexivity is the researcher's critical self-examination of their role in the research process.
Strong reflexivity includes:
- Acknowledgment of the researcher's background, assumptions, and potential biases
- Discussion of how researcher positionality may have influenced data collection and interpretation
- Description of strategies used to manage researcher influence
Weak reflexivity (flag as issue):
- Token statement ("The researcher acknowledges potential bias") with no specifics
- Complete absence of reflexivity in sensitive or politically charged research
- No discussion of how the researcher's role (insider/outsider) shaped access and interpretation
Severity Calibration for Qualitative Papers
| Issue | Severity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| No coding process described | Major | Reviewers cannot assess analytical rigor |
| No saturation discussion | Moderate | Common omission, but important for credibility |
| Missing reflexivity | Moderate (sensitive topics) / Minor (neutral topics) | Depends on research context |
| No member checking | Minor | One of many trustworthiness strategies |
| Vague sampling rationale | Moderate | Threatens transferability claims |
| Single coder, no verification | Moderate | Weakens analytical trustworthiness |
| No triangulation | Minor-Moderate | Depends on claims made |
Key References
- O'Brien, B. C., et al. (2014). Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251.
- Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ). International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357.
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.