Morse Janice M
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Qual Health Res. 2003 Jul;13(6):833-51. doi: 10.1177/1049732303013006005.
Although they complain that qualitative proposals are not reviewed fairly when funding agencies use quantitative criteria, qualitative researchers have failed the system by not developing alternative criteria for the evaluation of qualitative proposals. In this article, the author corrects this deficit by presenting criteria to assess the relevance, rigor, and feasibility of qualitative research. These criteria are not a checklist but rather a series of questions that can aid a reviewer, adept in qualitative methods, to comprehensively evaluate and defend qualitative research.
尽管定性研究的研究者抱怨，当资助机构使用定量标准时，定性研究的提案没有得到公平审查，但定性研究的研究者们未能推动该体系的改进，因为他们没有制定评估定性研究提案的替代标准。在本文中，作者通过提出评估定性研究的相关性、严谨性和可行性的标准来弥补这一不足。这些标准不是一份清单，而是一系列问题，可帮助擅长定性研究方法的评审人员全面评估和支持定性研究。
