Qualitative Research Like Politics Can Also Be Local

A Review of Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research

Bibliographic Data

ID14995437
AuthorsRonald J Chenail (0000-0002-9312-9780, Nova Southeastern University, corresponding author), Ronald Chenail (Nova Southeastern University)
Year2016
Publication date2016-10-18
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueQualitative Report (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1052-0147 • E-ISSN: 2160-3715
PublisherNova Southeastern University (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.46743/2160-3715/2009.2829
OpenAlexW3134453159
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited1

The political nature of defining what constitutes standards of rigor and quality in qualitative research comes to the forefront again in Lamont and Whites’ (2008) new report, Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research. Based upon a 2005 National Science Foundation (NSF) funded workshop for representatives from NSF’s Cultural Anthropology, Law and Social Science, Political Science, and Sociology programs, Lamont, White, and their colleagues share perspectives on what they see as strengths, standards, and opportunities for qualitative research today and in the near future. Although this manuscript might not allay the fears of those in the field concerned over the "conservative challenge" that such federal policy reports can issue, the work does offer some promising contrasts to some similarly oriented reports of the recent past

Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Field (mathematics) · Foundation (evidence) · Political science · Politics · Qualitative research · Rigour · Social science · Sociology · Data Analysis and Archiving · Engineering · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Law · Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access