Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action

Andrew C Sparkes, Brett Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

326 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem
A variety of conceptions of qualitative research exist. This leads to a situation in which there are competing claims as to what counts as good-quality work. These competing claims revolve around the issue of criteria and how they are used to pass judgment on qualitative research. Those involved in sport and exercise sciences need to reflect on this issue with a view to generating further dialogue and a greater understanding of difference within the research community.

Method
Two ideal types of researcher, one a criteriologist the other a relativist, are constructed to illustrate how each might judge qualitative studies of different kinds.

Results
A comparison of the ways in which the criteriologist and the relativist draw on different assumptions to judge qualitative studies illustrates the constraining nature of the former and the expansive possibilities of the latter.

Conclusions
Criteria should be viewed as lists of characterizing traits that are open to reinterpretation as times, conditions, and purposes change. Researchers need to adopt the role of connoisseur in order to pass judgment on different kinds of study in a fair and ethical manner.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)491-497
Number of pages7
JournalPsychology of Sport and Exercise
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this