Reviewing Qualitative Research: Proposed Criteria for Fairness and Rigor

Methods such as triangulation, negative case analysis, and testing for rival hypotheses appear to show promise as criteria of fairness and rigor for publication of qualitative naturalistic research in occupational therapy.

Abstract

The introduction of qualitative naturalistic research—qualitative research within the paradigm of naturalistic inquiry—into a scholarly tradition that historically has been positivistic has caused concern and controversy among both naturalists and logical positivists in the social sciences. The purpose of this article is to attempt to establish legitimate and fair criteria for the publication of qualitative naturalistic research in occupational therapy. Traditional criteria from the paradigm of logical positivism emphasizing internal validity and external validity are reviewed, and parallel criteria for qualitative naturalistic research, such as credibility and transferability, are examined. Methods such as triangulation, negative case analysis, and testing for rival hypotheses appear to show promise as criteria of fairness and rigor for publication of qualitative naturalistic research in occupational therapy.