Navigating the messy swamp of qualitative research: Are generic reporting standards the answer?

References

• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2):77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2016. (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 19 (6):739–43. doi:10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2021a. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. ONLINE FIRST. Qualitative Psychology. doi:10.1037/qup0000196.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke (2021b). Tips on writing a qualitative dissertation or thesis, from Braun & Clarke – Part 1 and Part 2. Edpsy.org.uk. https://edpsy.org.uk/blog/2021/tips-on-writing-a-qualitative-dissertation-or-thesis-from-braun-clarke-part-1/
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2021c. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise & Health 13 (2):201–16. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2021. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18 (3): 328–352 . . doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2022. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, K., T. Cain, J. Sheridan, and A. Dupuis. 2011. Pluralisms in qualitative research: From multiple methods to integrated methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology 8 (2):151–69. doi:10.1080/14780887.2011.572730.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K., and R. Thornberg. 2020. The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology 18 (3): 305–327 . . doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey, I. 1999. Grounding grounded theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, R., C. T. Fischer, and D. L. Rennie. 1999. Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 38 (3):215–29. doi:10.1348/014466599162782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, B., and A. Madill. 2012. Subjectivity in psychological research: From problem to prospect. Psychological Methods 17 (3):374–84. doi:10.1037/a0029313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, G., K. M. MacQueen, and E. E. Namey. 2012. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483384436.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, C. E., Ed. 2012. Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Kidder, L. H., and M. Fine. 1987. Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In New directions in program evaluation, ed. M. M. Mark, and L. Shotland, 57–75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• King, N., and J. Brooks. 2017. Thematic analysis in organisational research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods, ed. C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, and G. Grandy, 219–36. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt, H. M., M. Bamberg, J. W. Creswell, D. M. Frost, R. Josselson, and C. Suárez-Orozco. 2018. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications task force report. American Psychologist 73 (1):26–46. doi:10.1037/amp0000151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, H. M., S. L. Motulsky, F. J. Wertz, S. L. Morrow, and J. G. Ponterotto. 2017. Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology 4 (1):2–22. doi:10.1037/qup0000082.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt, H. M., Z. Morrill, K. Collins, and J. L. Rizo. 2021. The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counselling Psychology 68 (3):357–70. doi:10.1037/cou0000523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, H. M., Z. Morrill, and K. M. Collins. 2021. Considering methodological integrity in counselling and psychotherapy research. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research 68 (3):357–70. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/capr.12284. doi:10.1002/capr.12284.
   Google Scholar
• Low, J. 2019. A pragmatic definition of the concept of theoretical saturation. Sociological Focus 52 (2):131–39. doi:10.1080/00380237.2018.1544514.
   Google Scholar
• Madill, A., and B. Gough. 2008. Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods 13 (3):254–71. doi:10.1037/a0013220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse, J. 1997. “Perfectly healthy, but dead”: The myth of inter-rater reliability. Qualitative Health Research 7 (4):445–47. doi:10.1177/104973239700700401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, M., and N. Parker. 2012. “Unsatisfactory saturation”: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 13 (2):190–97. doi:10.1177/1468794112446106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reicher, S. 2000. Against methodolatry: some comments on Elliott, Fischer, and Rennie. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 39 (1):1–6. doi:10.1348/014466500163031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, R. L., F. L. Bishop, J. Horwood, J. Chilcot, and M. A. Arden. 2019. Enhancing the quality and transparency of qualitative research methods in health psychology. British Journal of Health Psychology 24 (4):739–45. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparkes, A. C., and B. Smith. 2009. Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10 (5):491–97. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. J. 2010. Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (10):837–51. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varpio, L., R. Ajjawi, L. V. Monrouxe, B. C. O’Brien, and C. E. Rees. 2017. Shedding the cobra effect: Problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Medical Education 51 (1):40–50. doi:10.1111/medu.13124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S. 2016. Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781473983335.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, S. 1998. Focus Groups in feminist research: Power, interaction and the co-construction of meaning. Women’s Studies International Forum 21 (1):111–25. doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00080-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willig, C. 2013. Introducing qualitative research in psychology. 3rd ed. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar