The Internal Audit As Tool To Enhance The Quality of Qualitative Research
The Internal Audit As Tool To Enhance The Quality of Qualitative Research
The Internal Audit As Tool To Enhance The Quality of Qualitative Research
INTRODUCTION
n general, researchers will agree that social science research is a systematic and
organised process whereby enough knowledge (evidence) is gained to provide an
accurate or truthful representation of a phenomenon under study. However, agreeing on
this does not mean that they will agree on theoretical or methodological issues. In fact,
there is a vast difference of opinion between qualitative and quantitative researchers as
to how the social world should be studied. (http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/workshop/
Facilitators_Guide_2.pdf).
The root of the difference lies in the worldview or ontology of the researcher. The one
will believe that human behaviour can be explained from the outside (epic) by means of
objectivistic observation and the use of general scientific laws (erklaren). The other will
assume that human behaviour can only be understood from an insider’s point of view
(emic) by gaining insight into the meaning (verstehen) that the participant gives to his/her
life world.
Qualitative and quantitative researchers therefore use different epistemological
assumptions stemming from different theoretical contexts to understand human behaviour.
In the context of this article it is important to comprehend that qualitative research aims at
understanding actors’ subjective meanings and interpretations to explain their behaviour
(Schwandt 2007), and that by accepting subjectivity as a legitimate domain for social
scientific research, a break is established between the natural and social sciences. (http://
bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/workshop/ Facilitators_Guide_2.pdf).
This is also true for the criteria by which qualitative research is measured. In other
words, a qualitative study resting on the premise of verstehen cannot be judged as truthful
or not by using the criteria meant to measure a study based on the premise of erklaren.
Therefore, when the quality of a piece of research is validated, the ontological and
epistemological position of the researcher should be the frame of the “magnifying glass”
used to establish the truthfulness of a study.
W. Schurink 789
Article
which may be competing. Therefore the idea that there is one ethical or moral route which is
equally fair to all concerned may sound good in theory, but be elusive in practice”.
Since research ethics is a complex issue, and it is very unlikely that there will ever be
one clear solution, it is particularly appropriate to follow a practical approach in which
you ask questions and push yourself hard to answer them. You need to be honest about
the purpose of your research. Your study is likely to include not only the advancement of
knowledge or understanding of some aspect of the social world, but also factors involving
personal gain, such as the achievement of a personal qualification, a promotion, some
standing in a discipline (amongst colleagues, friends, rivals, relatives, etc.), and/or some
research funding. “It is part of the politics of research that you should engage with this
wider context in which your research is being done. Your research may have explicitly
moral or political purposes. You may wish to advance the interest of a particular group
through it, or to gain acceptance for some particular form of social organization, or to
expose some form of immoral organization or activity, and so on. This does not necessarily
make the ethics of your research more straightforward however, not least because ‘the
interests of a particular group’ may be diverse or contested. The notion of one moral route
may therefore still be elusive” (Mason, 1996:29-30).
Mason (1996) suggests that researchers ask a number of questions to themselves like:
(i) which parties, bodies, practices, or whatever, are potentially interested or involved in or
affected by a particular study? (ii) What are the implications of framing particular research
questions in a study for these parties, bodies, practices, and so on?
Naturally researchers’ answers to questions like these will not inform them whether
their research questions are ethical or not, but will guide them towards identifying the
potentially complex range of interests touched upon by their studies. If researchers are
explicit about these interests, they can begin to work out which courses of action seem
the most reasonable and ethical, and which do not and are better left alone.
The first of these criteria namely credibility is considered as the most important one.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) outline various strategies to increase the credibility of qualitative
research:
• Prolonged engagement and persistent observation in the field;
• Triangulation of different methods;
• Peer debriefing;
• Member checks; and
• Formalised qualitative methods such as grounded theory and analytic induction.
Hammersley (1989; 1990 and 1992) adds to these criteria by developing the concept
internal reflexivity that leads to the development of the following criteria: (Kincheloe and
McLaren (1998) elaborate on this concept).
• Reflexive interrogation by the researchers of the epistemological baggage they bring
with them.
• Through a critical ethnography, researchers attempt to sensitise themselves and
participants to how hegemonic regimes of truth impact upon the subjectivities of the
disadvantaged.
W. Schurink 791
• Positivist conception of validity rejected in favour of the credibility of socially constructed
realities to those who have democratically participated in their development.
• Ability to generalise rejected in favour of accommodation – where researchers use their
knowledge of a range of comparable contexts to assess similarities and differences.
• Catalytic validity - extent to which research changes those they study so that they
understand the world in new ways and use this knowledge to change it - link
to pragmatist criterion of practical adequacy (http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk /
workshop/Facilitators_Guide_7.pdf).
Elliot, Fisher and Rennie (1999) developed what they term evolving guidelines for
critiquing qualitative research, namely:
• Owning one’s perspective, meaning that researchers describe their theoretical,
methodological and personal assumptions.
• Situating the sample, where the researcher describes the research participants and their
life circumstances.
• Grounding in examples. Examples of the data are presented to illustrate analytic
procedures used in the study to show how the researcher’s understanding developed
from it.
• Providing credibility checks. For example, checking understandings with participants,
using triangulation and comparing varied qualitative perspectives (analytic(al)
induction).
• Accomplishing general vs. specific research tasks. General understanding of the
phenomenon should be based on an appropriate range of participants and situations.
The findings are not intended to be extended to other contexts or participants. In
the case of specific understanding, participants and situations are systematically and
comprehensively described to provide the reader with a basis of understanding and it
also addresses limitations of transferability.
• Resonating with readers, meaning that the material is presented in such a way that the
reader judges it as credible.
Stating that the traditional criteria for qualitative research are inappropriate, Yardley
(2000) proposes the following criteria that could, according to her, lead to flexible
interpretation:
• Sensitivity to context. Here, the following dimensions are important: theory building,
use of relevant literature, awareness of the socio-cultural setting of the study, the
relationship between researcher and participant, and discussion of ethical issues.
• Commitment and rigour. This refers to an in-depth discussion of the topic/argument
and methodological competence through data collection and in-depth analysis of the
data.
• Transparency and coherence. The arguments must be clearly described, there must be
a fit between theory and research strategy and the methods used, and the researcher
should disclose and critically reflect on all his/her decisions taken during the entire
research process.
Charmaz (2007) presents the following premises, principles and practices for quality
qualitative research:
Premises
• A deep understanding of a studied life means entering it and thus taking an insider
perspective, and presenting an incisive analytical interpretation.
• To understand what is happening in a setting we need to know what things mean to
participants. Grasping the meaning participants have of their innermost experiences
and feelings, unlock our understanding of their actions and intentions.
• To learn participants’ meaning we need to be reflexive upon our own.
• Relationships between meanings and actions are dynamic and reciprocal. Actions
impact on meaning and meaning shapes actions.
• Flowing from this, the questions we ask and how we ask it, shape the answers we
obtain. For example, our way of gathering data impacts on what participants tell
us.
• Truths are relative, multiple and subject to redefining. For example, feminist-orientated
inquiry questioned traditional viewpoints on minority groups and women.
Principles
• A deep understanding of a studied life is based on the principle of intimate familiarity
with the phenomenon.
• Show a deep respect for our participants as human beings and treat them with
dignity.
• Using established theoretical perspectives as starting points, not ending points, can
help us to generate new theoretical insights.
• Accuracy means collecting sufficient data in order to have a full range of observations
of the phenomenon, not just theoretical saturation.
• Studying meanings and processes at both the subjective and social levels illuminates
the context.
Practices
Avoid using qualitative research methods in a mechanical way by:
• opening yourself up to the experience by allowing space for the unexpected to
happen;
• gathering sufficient data to make your study credible;
• paying attention to language; and
• looking beneath the surface.
W. Schurink 793
From the above, it is clear that many differently orientated qualitative research scholars
attempted to adapt or re-write the criteria for qualitative research as originally proposed by
Lincoln and Guba (1985). Apart from the attempts discussed above, there are many other
appraisal criteria lists for qualitative research, each mirroring the different ontological and
epistemological viewpoints of those who constructed it (Attee and Milton 2007:262). The
positivist will emphasise internal validity, construct validity, external validity, reliability
and objectivity. The realist stresses internal reflexive audit trails to demonstrate credibility,
dependability, confirmability, transferability and ecological validity or naturalism, while
subjectivists or constructionists would mostly agree with Schwandt that all measures
to assess qualitative research should be abandoned (http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/
workshop/Facilitators_Guide_7.pdf).
The important point is that despite the many attempts, there is still a lack of consensus
among researchers as to what criteria would be acceptable to measure the quality of
qualitative research. “A lack of consensus among researchers means that standards for
good qualitative enquiry remain elusive” (Attee and Milton, 2007:262). Finding the
golden standard for the evaluation of qualitative research is therefore difficult if not
impossible since qualitative researchers differ vastly in their approach, each having
their own theoretical background, methodological principles and aims (Flick, 2007:6).
Just as there is no consensus between the different qualitative approaches there can
never be a list of criteria for the appraisal of qualitative research that would be accepted
by all qualitative researchers. This means that when judging the quality of qualitative
research, the truthfulness of the study can only be justly validated if the reader/
reviewer is informed and understands the epistemological and ontological position
the researcher adopted. Differently stated, when evaluating qualitative research, the
researcher’s theoretical approach, research strategy and methodology followed in the
study should be seen as the launching pad from where the trustworthiness of the study
could be critiqued.
From a scan of recent literature, it appears that presently at least three distinct
perspectives on assessing the quality of qualitative research can be found amongst
scholars. These are: (i) qualitative and quantitative research should be evaluated by the
same measures, (ii) qualitative research should be evaluated by standards that have been
particularly developed for it, and (iii) what Holloway and Wheeler (2002) call criteriology,
that is, abandoning measures to asses qualitative work. “The belief that qualitative research
would achieve paradigm takeoff by imitating the methods of natural sciences is thus to
a greater extent discarded by qualitative researchers and in particular by postmodernists
(Schwandt, 2007:40). In the process qualitative researchers came up with more and more
checklists and frameworks for the development of alternative criteria based on qualitative
research principles” (Flick, 2007).
Existing criteria for trustworthy or credible research can never meet the approval of all
qualitative researchers. It is therefore not surprising that the notion of developing criteria of
soundness to meet the approval of all qualitative researchers has to date been discarded
to a large extent, or as Schwandt (2007) states that qualitative researchers have gone
beyond it. This however, does not mean that qualitative research has become unscientific
W. Schurink 795
Figure 1: Elements of the auditing trail
PROCESS OF OBSERVATION
AND REFLEXIVITY
Reconstruction of data and results of synthesis: categories,
findings and integration of it with the literature
DISTORTED BY:
Data reduction and results of syntheses: summarising and theoretical notes. SOCIO-CULTURAL
EMOTIONAL
Process notes: methodological notes and decisions regarding
trustworthiness and credibility of findings THEORY-LADEN
PHYSIOLOGICAL
Observational notes
BACKGROUND
and articulate their role in research processes and products, the more readers can engage
in symbolic dialogues with the author(s), and the more their confidence in the work will
increase. More specifically, it could help the researcher to be reflexively interconnected in
the research process, particularly when analysing his/her data. The analysis of qualitative
data is mostly regarded as a process of sorting, organising, and indexing the information
obtained. This is often wrongly seen as a mechanical process that takes place in a social
vacuum. In reality (as is clear from Figure 1), researchers are all but invisible since they
have their own ontological, epistemological and theoretical assumptions as well as their
own backgrounds, personal, emotional and interpersonal influences that they bring with
them to the research process (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003).
It has therefore become more important for qualitative researchers to reflect on the
research process in terms of: What happened? Who was involved? Where did the activities
occur? What circumstances or issues impacted on the data? What are the major issues
emerging? What issues need to be followed up on? It also involves exploring the meaning
of the data further by asking “so what” and “what if” questions. The reflexive process is
very helpful to relating occurrences, for example words, expressions, interactions and
social processes to people, events, other occurrences, values and norms of particular
W. Schurink 797
positivism, postmodernism and critical theory), Holland (1999) talks about four different
‘levels’ and Finlay (2002) suggests five different ‘maps’ (http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.
ac.uk/ workshop /Facilitators_Guide_3.pdf). In order to gain a deeper understanding of
the concept reflexivity it is necessary to place it within the framework of methodology,
epistemological commitments and disciplinary maps (http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/
workshop /Facilitators_Guide_3.pdf).
Methodologically, we are centrally concerned with practices and procedures for
research and how these impacted on in the conclusions reached, i.e. how and why
the research was designed, conducted and analysed, and how this led to particular
conclusions. Questions asked in this regard include:
• How should the research be designed or conducted in order to provide a convincing
account?
• What alternative interpretations are there?
• What role do researchers play in producing results?
• What choices were made and what were the reasons for them?
It is necessary for us to reflect on how our disciplinary assumptions and background may
structure a research project and how such assumptions may favour the production of
certain types of knowledge, and how participants may be affected by this. For example,
in psychology, the ‘psychologising’ of the individual (examination of ‘internal’ cognitions
etc.) can have the effect of individualising or putting responsibility on the individual and
ignoring the structural/policy aspects of a situation (http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/
workshop/Facilitators_Guide_3.pdf).
W. Schurink 799
Who, What, When, Where and How of human activity. It tells who said or did what,
under stated circumstances” (Schatzman and Strauss, 1973:100).
• Methodological notes (MN). Methodological notes are mainly reminders, instructions
and critical comments to the recorder or researcher on how to collect the data, how to
improve the quality of the interviews, whom to talk to next, etc. “Methodological notes
might be thought of as observational notes on the researcher himself and upon the
methodological process itself; as complete a chronicle as the recorder finds necessary
or fruitful “(Schatzman and Strauss, 1973:101).
• Theoretical notes (TN). Theoretical notes are self-conscious, systematic attempts by
the researcher to critically reflect on what took place (ON’s), what he/she thought and
experienced. Schatzman and Strauss (1973: 101) write: “The observer as recorder thinks
about what he has experienced, and makes whatever private declaration of meaning
he feels will bear conceptual fruit. He interprets, infers, hypothesises, conjectures; he
develops new concepts, links these to older ones, or relates any observation to any
other…”
• Personal notes (PN). These are the researcher’s critical reflection about his/her feelings
about the research.
CONCLUSION
he above guidelines could help us to reflect critically on how we construct
knowledge from the research process and how the quality of that knowledge could
be enhanced. More specifically it could help us to answer the following essential
questions about the research process:
• What kind of factors influenced the researcher’s construction of knowledge?
• How are these influences accounted for in the research process?
These guidelines could also help us to focus on improving the quality of qualitative research
by not only critically evaluating the research methods and the data but also the researcher,
the participants and the research context. Since these proposed guidelines also focus on the
interpersonal aspects of the research and the interaction between researcher and participant,
it also reflects on the very important ethical dimensions of research. Therefore, the use of
the above guidelines could help researchers to do both rigorous and ethical research. By
using it to critically reflect on ourselves and our participant(s) within the framework of our
research design, we could enhance the quality of our research. As Etherington (2006:32)
states: “If we can be aware of how our own thoughts, feelings, culture, environment and
social and personal background inform us as we dialogue with participants, transcribe their
conversations with us and write our representations of the work, then perhaps we can come
close to the rigour that is required of good qualitative research”.
NOTES
1 That is, a systematically maintained documentation process of the researcher’s continuous critical analysis of all deci-
Bibliography
Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. 2000. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research.
London: Sage Publications.
Attee, P. and Milton, B. 2007. Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews:
defusing the methodological cluster bombs. In Bryman, A. (Ed). Qualitative research 2 volume
II – Quality issues in qualitative research. 261–280. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bryman, A. 2007. Editor’s introduction. In: Bryman, Alan (Ed.). Qualitative research 2. Volume 1.
Collecting data for qualitative research (pp. xxiii-xlv). London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. 2007. Premises, Principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the
foundations. In Bryman, A. (Ed.) Qualitative research 2 volume II – Quality issues in qualitative
research, pp.112-134. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., Laws, C., Mueller-Rockstroh, B., and Bendix Petersen,
E. 2007. The ambivalent practices of reflexivity. In Bryman, A. (Ed.) Qualitative research 2
volume III –Issues of representation and reflexivity, pp. 136–167. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N.K. 1997. Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N.K. 2001. The reflexive interview and performative social science. Qualitative research,
1(1), pp. 23–46.
Elliot, R., Fisher C.T. and Rennie, D.L. 1999. Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative
research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Flick, U. 2007. (Eds.) Designing qualitative research. The SAGE qualitative Research Kit. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Giogi, A. 1988. Validity and reliability from a phenomenological perspective. In Baer, Moss, L.,
Rappard, H. and Stam, H. (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology, New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. 2004. “Ethics and reflexivity, and Ethically important moments” in
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), pp. 261–280.
Hammersley, M. 1990. Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide, Longman: London.
Hammersley, M. 1992. What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Routledge: London.
Hammersley, M. 1995. The Politics of Social Research. Sage: London.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N. and Clegg, S. 2001. Reflexivity in organization and management theory: A
study of the production of the research ‘subject’. Human Relations, 54, pp. 531–560.
Holland, R. 1999. Reflexivity. Human Relations, 52, pp. 463–483.
W. Schurink 801
Holloway, I. and Wheeler, S. 2002. Qualitative research in nursing. (2nd ed) Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
http://bgpinqmr.group.shef.ac.uk/workshop/Facilitators_Guide_2.pdf.
Johnson, P. and Cassell, C. 2001. Epistemology and work psychology: New agendas. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, pp. 125–141.
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. 2003. Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management
Studies, 40, pp. 1279–1303.
Jones, M.O. 1996. Studying Organizational Symbolism: What, How, Why?, Qualitative research
methods series, Vol. 39(1).
Kavale, S, 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Kinchloe, J.L. and McLaren, P.L. 1998. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Denzin,
N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Enquiry. Beverly Hill CA: Sage.
Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mauthner, N.S. and Doucet, A. 2003. Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative
data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), pp. 413–431.
Morse, J.M. 1994. Emerging from the data: the cognitive process of analysis in qualitative enquiry.
In Morse, J.M. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage.
Neuman, W.L. 1997. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Richardson, L. 2004. Writing a method of inquiry. In Hesse-Biber, S. and Leavy, P. (Eds.), Approaches
to qualitative research. A reader on theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press,
pp. 473–495.
Schatzman, L. and Strauss, A.L. 1973. Field research; strategies for a natural sociology. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Schwandt, T.A. 1996. Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative inquiry, 2(1), pp. 58–72.
Schwandt, T.A. 2007. The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Seale, C. 1999. Quality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), pp. 465–478.
Stiles, W.B. 1993. Quality control in qualitative research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, pp. 593–618.
Woolgar, S. (ed.) 1988. Knowledge and Reflexivity. London: Sage.
Yardley, L. 2000. Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and health, 15(2), pp. 215–228.