Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research

Editor—Barbour's article is tantalising and mystifying in equal measure.¹ She is right to counsel qualitative researchers from shielding behind a protective wall of checklists and quasi-paradigmatic research techniques—although the same should be levelled at epidemiologists, statisticians, and health economists, with all researchers being charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the research tools and analysis fit the question to be addressed. Yet, and this is where the tantalising becomes mystifying, she twice (once in the second paragraph and again in the last) tells us that our research strategies need to be informed by the epistemology of qualitative research, without giving us an inkling as to what she believes this to be. Although she rightly espouses the importance of context for qualitative researchers, she denies us the context in which to assess her own critique.

As a champion of applied social science, particularly action research and qualitative research in public health, I think that the biggest threat to this growing area of work is not so much overadherence to prescriptive checklists and sampling strategies but rather the over-reliance on self reports and verbal representations of the world. For many, qualitative research has become synonymous with the semistructured interview, the self report, and the ubiquitous focus group. The roots of qualitative research are in anthropology and ethnography, where direct observation of events is central. Much of the contribution of qualitative research in the understanding of social aspects of health issues, notably HIV/AIDS, has been through direct observation of the nuances of social behaviour. Questioning the validity of checklists and the prevailing methodological orthodoxy in qualitative research is useful, but of greater relevance is the need to promote (and teach) a more observational paradigm for qualitative health research.