Validity, trustworthiness and rigour:reasserting realism in qualitative research

Aim The aim of this paper is to challenge recent sceptical approaches to the possibility of validating qualitative research and to underline the benefits of adopting a realist approach to validity. Background In recent discussion about the methodological bases for qualitative research it has been argued that, because different methodologies take different approaches to validity, attempts to develop a common set of validation criteria are futile. On the basis of this sceptical view, a number of strategies for judging qualitative research have been proposed. These include suggestions that: it should be judged according to aesthetic or rhetorical criteria, rather than epistemological validity; responsibility for appraisal should move from researchers to readers; each methodology should be assessed individually according to its own merits. Discussion None of these suggestions provide a viable alternative to validity, defined as the extent to which research reflects accurately that to which it refers. Because the form of research does not determine its content, replacement of epistemology by aesthetics is unsustainable. Because research reports mediate between writer and reader, a one-sided approach to this relationship constitutes a false dichotomy. If we accept the criterion of practitioner confidence as a means of judging methodological approaches, this involves rejection of judgement according to a methodology�s own merits. Conclusion If qualitative research is actually about something, and if it is required to provide beneficial information, then a realist approach to validity holds out greatest promise.

On the Problems of Mixing RCTs with Qualitative Research: The Case of the MRC Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Healthcare Interventions

In the perceived hierarchy of research designs, the results from randomized controlled trials are considered to provide the highest level of evidence. Indeed these trials have been upheld as the gold standard in research. The benefits and limitations of the randomized controlled trial as a method of evaluating the effectiveness of healthcare interventions are presented. The article then examines the different levels of complexity within healthcare interventions and the problems this poses in determining effectiveness. In an effort to provide a solution to this problem, the Medical Research Council produced a framework to assist investigators to develop and evaluate complex healthcare interventions. The framework is described with reference to an example of implementing and evaluating protocols for weaning patients in the intensive care unit. The framework is critiqued on the basis that it involves an ambiguous or contradictory ontology, which fails to articulate the relationship between the positivism of randomized controlled trials with the relativism of qualitative approaches. It is concluded that the use of realist strategies in combination with randomized controlled trials provides the most coherent solution to this quandary

Cancer Cachexia Care: The Contribution of Qualitative Research to Evidence-Based Practice

Background: Despite its prevalence and prognostic impact, primary cachexia is not well understood. Its potential to cause considerable psychological stress indicates the need for qualitative research to help understand the perspectives of those affected.

Objective: The aims of this study were to describe the perspectives of patients with primary cachexia, of their relatives, and of the healthcare professionals involved in their care and to demonstrate how this evidence can be applied in practice at 4 different levels of application ranging from empathy to coaching.

Methods: A review of the qualitative literature and empirical qualitative investigation was used to understand the experiences of patients and relatives and the perspectives of professionals.

Results: The main worries expressed by patients and relatives concerned appetite loss, changing appearance, prognosis, and social interaction. We also describe their coping responses and their views of professionals’ responses. The main concerns of professionals related to poor communication, lack of clinical guidance, and lack of professional education.

Conclusions: Understanding patients’, families’, and professionals’ perspectives, and mapping that understanding onto what we know about the trajectory and prognosis of the condition, provides the evidence base for good practice. Qualitative research has a central role to play in providing the knowledge base for the nursing care of patients with cachexia.

Implications for Practice: The evidence provided can improve nurses’ insight and assist them in assessment of status, the provision of guidance, and coaching. There is a need for the development of a holistic, information-based integrated care pathway for those with cancer cachexia and their families.

Qualitative research on chronic illness:A commentary on method and conceptual development

This concluding essay discusses some crucial methodological issues raised by other papers in this issue. It also suggests directions for further conceptuel development concerning the qualitative research on chronic illness.

Money matters: using qualitative research for policy influencing on gender and welfare reform

The UK government has been considering the design and delivery of the proposed “universal credit”, the centerpiece of its welfare reforms. The authors draw on findings from their own research, about how low/moderate-income couples manage money and negotiate gender roles, to demonstrate their relevance to exploring the gender implications of the proposals for universal credit. Findings from this and other similar studies are used to explore the value of qualitative research to policy design and debates – in particular to supplement economic modeling, which has been highly influential in driving the current UK government's thinking on welfare reform. The authors discuss the reasons why insights about gender relations within the household revealed by such qualitative research appear to have been resisted in the reform.

Ethical dilemmas for clinical psychologists in conducting qualitative research

Clinical psychologists often use qualitative methods to explore sensitive topics with vulnerable individuals, yet there has been little discussion of the specific ethical issues involved. For clinicians conducting qualitative research, there are likely to be ethical dilemmas associated with being both a researcher and a practitioner. We argue that this overarching issue frames all other ethical issues raised. This article provides an overview of the range of ethical issues that have been discussed in general in relation to qualitative research and considers the specific nature of these in relation to the discipline of clinical psychology. Such issues will be exemplified by reference to some of our own research and practice and the extant literature. We conclude with some suggestions for good practice, although our aim is to trigger debate rather than to establish prescriptive guidelines.