Doing good qualitative research in public health: not as easy as it looks

Stacy M. Carter; Jan E. Ritchie; Peter Sainsbury

doi:10.1071/NB09018

EDITORIAL

Previous Next Contents Vol 20(8)

Doing good qualitative research in public health: not as easy as it looks

Stacy M. Carter ^A ^B ^G , Jan E. Ritchie ^C ^D ^E and Peter Sainsbury ^B ^F

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney

^B School of Public Health, University of Sydney

^C School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales

^D School of Public Health, Griffith University

^E International Union for Health Promotion and Education

^F Population Health, Sydney South West Area Health Service

^G Corresponding author. Email: carters@med.usyd.edu.au

NSW Public Health Bulletin 20(8) 105-111 https://doi.org/10.1071/NB09018
Published: 7 September 2009

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss qualitative research for public health professionals. Quality matters in qualitative research, but the principles by which it is judged are critically different from those used to judge epidemiology. Compared to quantitative research, good quality qualitative studies serve different aims, answer distinct research questions and have their own logic for sampling, data collection and analysis. There is, however, no need for antagonism between qualitative research and epidemiology; the two are complementary. With theoretical and methodological guidance from experienced qualitative researchers, public health professionals can learn how to make the most of qualitative research for themselves.

Acknowledgments

Our sincere thanks to the authors for their contributions to this issue of the Bulletin.

References

[1] Mooney-Somers JD, Maher L. The Indigenous Resiliency Project: a worked example of community-based participatory research. N S W Public Health Bull 2009; 20(7–8): 112–8.

[2] Leask J. How do general practitioners persuade parents to vaccinate their children? A study using standardised scenarios. N S W Public Health Bull 2009; 20(7–8): 119–24.

[3] Lewis JM. Understanding policy influence and the public health agenda. N S W Public Health Bull 2009; 20(7–8): 125–9.

[4] Yardley L. Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychol Health 2000; 15 215–28.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[5] Kitto SC, Chesters J, Grbich C. Quality in qualitative research: Criteria for authors and assessors in the submission and assessment of qualitative research articles for the Medical Journal of Australia. Med J Aust 2008; 188(4): 243–6.
| PubMed |

[7] Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. London: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.

[8] Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Qualitative research: critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008; 337 a1035.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[9] Seale C. The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications; 1999.

[10] Flick U, editor. Managing quality in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications; 2007.

[11] Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349–57.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[14] Daly KJ. Paths of inquiry for qualitative research. In: Daly KJ, editor. Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007. pp. 43–60.

[15] Shank G. The extraordinary ordinary powers of abductive reasoning. Theory Psychol 1998; 8(6): 841–60.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[16] Maxwell JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005.

[17] Bowen G. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res 2008; 8(1): 137–52.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[18] Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res 1995; 5(2): 147–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[19] Carter SM, Little M. Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: epistemologies, methodologies and methods in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2007; 17(10): 1316–28.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[20] Morse JM. “What’s your favorite color?” Reporting irrelevant demographics in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2008; 18(3): 299–300.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[21] Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007.

[22] Barbour RS. The newfound credibility of qualitative research? Tales of technical essentialism and co-option. Qual Health Res 2003; 13(7): 1019–27.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[23] Mason J. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2002.

[24] Reeves S, Albert M, Kuper A, Hodges B. Why use theories in qualitative research? BMJ 2008; 337(7670): 631–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[25] Buchanan DR. An Ethic for Health Promotion: Rethinking the Sources of Human Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.

[26] Flyvbjerg B. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

[27] Eriksen TH, Nielsen FS. A history of anthropology. London: Pluto Press; 2001.

[28] Bulmer M. The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the Rise of Sociological Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1986.