Use when establishing or evaluating the trustworthiness and rigor of qualitative research using Lincoln & Guba's criteria and related frameworks.
“Rigor” in qualitative research is less about replication in a narrow sense and more about demonstrating that findings are credible, contextually meaningful, carefully documented, and reflexively produced. Lincoln and Guba’s trustworthiness framework remains widely used; newer approaches add critical, participatory, and justice-oriented quality criteria.
Credibility
Transferability
Dependability
Confirmability
Member checking can support credibility but is debated in grounded theory. Document what type you used and why. See the member-checking skill for GT-specific cautions.
Positivist “validity/reliability” language can mis-fit constructivist paradigms. If your committee demands those terms, map them explicitly (e.g., credibility ≈ internal validity in a loose translation) and defend paradigm-appropriate criteria.
Constructivist work may emphasize reflexivity, co-construction, and situated knowledge. Critical and participatory approaches may add actionability, distributive justice, and community benefit. Pragmatist mixed-methods studies may foreground usefulness alongside trustworthiness.
In methods/findings:
Glaserian rigor emphasizes fit, work, relevance, modifiability of theory relative to data. Connect trustworthiness techniques to those criteria when writing GT studies so reviewers see coherence across frameworks.