Qualitative Research: the “good,” the “bad,” the “ugly”

Finlay, Linda (2024). Qualitative Research: the “good,” the “bad,” the “ugly”. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 14 pp. 1–19.

URL: https://ejqrp.org/index.php/ejqrp/article/view/294...

Abstract

This article explores what constitutes “Good,” “Bad,” and “Ugly” qualitative research towards more fully appreciating of the nature and vision of its project. In the first two sections, I define qualitative research and map variants. Then, after highlighting qualitative evaluation criteria, I explore key issues and themes of what seems to make research “Good,” “Bad,” or “Ugly”. In the latter half of the paper, I focus specifically on four broad types of qualitative research (literature review, phenomenology, narrative-ethnographic research and discourse analysis), critically discussing a good exemplar of each. To make my strategic selections more transparent and show my role in the construction of this paper, reflexive passages are offered. Here, I engage versions of personal/introspective and methodological/contextual reflexivity plus utilise some embodied and ethical reflexivity.

Viewing alternatives

Item Actions

Export

You can export this page using these formats