RES08027 Critiquing Guidelines Qualitative Research Assignment

Bachelor of Science (Honours) in General Nursing/ Mental Health Nursing Department of Nursing & Healthcare Research Appreciation

Contents

1.0 Writing style/ Author/s,/Title/Abstract

2.0 Research Design/ Literature review/ Theoretical/ conceptual framework/ Sampling

3.0 Ethical considerations/ Data collection/ Data analysis

4.0 Validity/ Findings/Implications for practice/Discussion/Recommendations Reference

Critiquing Qualitative Research

1.0 Writing style/ Author/s,/Title/Abstract

Writing Style

• Is the report professionally written?
• Is it aesthetically pleasing and easy to read?
• Can you find the main points of the research process within the article?
• Are the important headings organised logically, chronologically according to the research process?
• Is there jargon or is the article understandable?

Author/s

• Are the authors clearly identified and does the article articulate their qualifications or provide an author biography?
• Are their knowledge base/ qualifications clearly and concisely articulated or is there ambiguity within the article?
• Does the author identify their philosophical lens/ underpinnings and epistemological and ontological basis?
• Please note that the philosophical underpinnings for appraisal of phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, and action research vary.
• Does this align with the study overall?
• Why did the author choose this?

Title

• Is the article clearly conveyed according to the title?
• Does the title accurately align with the content of the article or is it an abstract presentation?
• Is the title ambiguous?

Abstract

• Is the abstract clear and concise?
• Does it offer and present a clear indication as to the content within the article?
• Does it include an adequate synopsis incorporating the research process’s vital components, for example the research design, the research problem or question, sample, methodology, findings, and recommendations?
• Hint: Read through the article once noting your initial observations

2.0 Research Design/ Literature review/ Theoretical/ conceptual framework/ Sampling

Research Design

• Has the research design and statement of the phenomenon of interest been clearly identified and articulated?
• Is the purpose or statement of the problem of the study clearly identified?
• Is there justification for using a qualitative method?

Literature review

• Is the review logically organised? Is there a balance of arguments within the literature review and adequate critical analysis?
• Are the references/ sources from an academic source and recent?
• Are the sources primary or secondary?
• When was the literature review conducted, and does this align with the qualitative research approach?
• Does the timing of the literature review assist in removing bias?

Theoretical/ Conceptual Framework

• Has a conceptual or theoretical framework been identified?
• Is the framework further described?
• Is the framework suitable for the study and does it align appropriately to predict and understand the phenomenon or study?
• Is the framework adhered to within the study?

Sampling

• Has the sampling strategy been identified?
• Is the sample size articulated?
• Is the sample and strategy appropriate for the study?
• Are the participants suitable for informing the research study?
• Was the recruitment site adequate for the study?
• What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria?

3.0 Ethical considerations/ Data collection/ Data analysis

Ethical considerations

• Were the participants fully informed about the research? How were they informed?
• Was the autonomy/confidentiality of the participants guaranteed?
• Were they advised of the right to withdraw at any time?
• Were the participants protected from harm?
• Was ethical permission granted for the study?
• Where was ethical permission sought from?
• Did any ethical issues arise?
• How did the researchers manage the ethical issue?
• What ‘safety nets’ were put in place for resolving the issues?
• Were the issues identified prior to undertaking the study?

Data collection

• Are the data collection strategies described?
• Are the strategies used to analyse the data articulated and appropriate to the research study?
• Did the researcher follow the steps of the data analysis method identified?
• Was data saturation achieved? When and how?
• Is there a clear timeline indicated pertaining to the initial ‘how’ and ‘when’ of participant recruitment?

Data analysis

• Who analysed the data? How many researchers?
• Did the researcher remain true to the data in how they presented the raw data and extrapolated themes?
• Were there any discrepancies in the results? How was this resolved?
• Is there a clear audit trail?
• Was a data analysis framework utilised?
• Was this framework appropriate to the study and was it adhered to?
• Hint: there should be a truly clear, transparent, concise audit trail to ensure rigor, trustworthiness, dependability, credibility.

4.0 Validity/ Findings/Implications for practice/Discussion/Recommendations

Validity and Rigor

• Does the researcher discuss how rigor was assured?
• Were rigor, credibility, dependability, transferability, auditability, and goodness discussed?
• Is there a transparent audit trail at all stages of the research?
• All applications should be discussed within the study including the authors’ role and any potential bias.
• Was there enough time in the study to understand the phenomenon?

Findings/ Implications for practice

• Is the purpose of the study referred to and addressed?
• Are the findings clearly articulated?
• Is transferability discussed? Are the results meaningful outside the study?
• Do the findings link to the data?
• Is this reflected in the research study?
• Is there a clear route/ audit trail as to where the findings arrived by the researchers/s?
• Are the findings presented appropriately?
• Is the report in the context of what was already known of the phenomenon?

Discussion/ Recommendations

• Are the importance and implications of the findings identified?
• Were the findings placed in the context of what is already known?
• Are there recommendations suggested for how the research findings can be further developed?
• Does the author suggest that they may research further?

References

• Is the reference correct?
• Which referencing style is utilised and is it appropriate?
• Are there any missing references or errors?
• Are references and citations correct within the research article/ study

References

• Casp (2024) Available at CASP – Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (casp-uk.net)
  Accessed on 04/10/2024
• Haber, J.(2022) Nursing Research (Tenth Edition) Accessed at https://www.clinicalkey.com/student/nursing/content/book/3-s2.0-B9780323762915000247 on 04/10/2024
• Ryan F, Coughlan M, Cronin P. (2007) Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing. 6(12):738-44. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726.
• Thorne, S.2020) Beyond theming: Making qualitative studies matter. Nursing Inquiry.