Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?

摘要: Qualitative research methods are enjoying unprecedented popularity. Although checklists have undoubtedly contributed to the wider acceptance of such methods, these can be counterproductive if used prescriptively. The uncritical adoption a range “technical fixes” (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) does not, in itself, confer rigour. In this article I discuss limitations procedures argue that there is no substitute for systematic thorough application principles qualitative research. Technical fixes will achieve little unless they embedded broader understanding rationale assumptions behind research. #### Summary points Checklists useful improving but overzealous use counterproductive Reducing list technical overly prescriptive results “the tail wagging dog” None itself confers rigour; strengthen rigour only design data analysis Otherwise we risk compromising unique contribution make health services research In medical question longer whether valuable how ensured or enhanced. Checklists played an important role conferring respectability on convincing potential sceptics its thoroughness.1–3 They equipped those unfamiliar with approach evaluate review work (by providing guidance crucial questions need asked) reminding researchers aide-memoire various stages involved analysis4). Qualitative stress …