ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Good, bad, different or something else? A scoping review of the convictions, conventions and developments around quality in qualitative research.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Good, bad, different or something else? A scoping review of the convictions, conventions and developments around quality in qualitative research.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a scoping review of methodological papers in the social science literature covered in Scopus from 2017 to 2022. In this review, we document the shared norms, ideals and practices regarding the quality of qualitative research methodology. More specifically, we examined the regularly proposed idea that qualitative methodology is so diverse that it is unfeasible to establish shared quality standards. Coding of 111 articles yielded 17 categories that relate to key topics discussed in publications on research quality in qualitative research, such as the quality of the research process, integrity, reflexivity, ethics and transparency. These codes reflect both established ideals and new developments. We conclude that articles in our sample have many shared values in common, but that these values at this point do not yet translate into shared research practices or a common core for quality evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.