Qualitative Rigor

Credibility

• Prolonged engagement and persistent observation.
• Triangulation (data, methods, investigators—used thoughtfully).
• Peer debriefing and negative case analysis.
• Thick description of processes, not only outcomes.

Transferability

• Thick description of setting, actors, constraints, and local meanings.
• Clear boundaries: what this study is not claiming.

Dependability

• Audit trail of decisions (coding changes, sampling pivots, memo evolution).
• Process transparency: how data became interpretations.

Confirmability

• Audit trail + reflexive documentation.
• Data extracts displayed alongside analytic claims in publications.

Member checking (use judiciously)

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.

Comparison with validity and reliability

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.

Paradigm-specific quality 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.

Reporting structure (suggested)

In methods/findings:

1. State your quality framework and why it fits your paradigm.
2. List concrete techniques used (not generic promises).
3. Show evidence: excerpts, decision logs, triangulation tables.
4. Acknowledge limitations and how you searched for disconfirming evidence.

Grounded theory note

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.

Checklist

• Quality criteria named and justified paradigmatically.
• At least two credibility techniques beyond “I coded carefully.”
• Dependability/confirmability supported by audit trail practices.
• Transferability supported by contextual detail, not over-claiming universality.
• Limitations and negative case efforts transparent.

References (starting points)

• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. Naturalistic inquiry.
• Tracy, S. J. “Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research.” Qualitative Inquiry.
• Morse, J. M., et al. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.