Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

“Stretching” exercises for qualitative research

Analysis of Qualitative Research

 evaluate the methods used for establishing quality. Incorporate appropriate references to this week�s
media resource as well as the course readings about establishing quality. For all the questions below,
remember to explain how you came to your conclusions. Support your answers with explanation or

evidence drawn from the doctoral study and from course readings.

� Were the methods for establishing quality used appropriately for the qualitative tradition or research

design (e.g., case study, ethnography, grounded theory, etc.)? Why or why not?

� Were all aspects of the methods for establishing quality described or justified sufficiently? If not, what

could have the author said and why? If sufficient, explain why you think so.

� Do you think the author should have used additional methods to establish quality? If so, what other
methods would you recommend and specifically why should they have been used in this particular study?
If not, why not? This includes the methods of establishing quality as well as how they were conducted or



Analysis of Qualitative Research

In the absence of rigor or quality, qualitative research becomes fiction and worthless, and
its utility is also lost. Therefore, there is a great need for the researchers to pay particular
attention to validity and reliability in all the research methods applied. The researcher used the
methods through which quality is established in qualitative studies appropriately. The data
collection method that the researcher used is well established in qualitative research
investigations (Merriam & Associates, 2002). Both the data analysis and collection methods
were derived from those which have been in use previously, and their use was successful.
Second, regardless of the fact that the researcher selected the participants from people he knew
professionally or personally, which might compromise quality, this often helps. As Birks,
Chapman and Francis (2007) recommends, one of the ways of establishing credibility in a
research is developing early familiarity with the participating organizations’ culture prior to the
initial data collection dialogues. Bernard (2010) noted that if there is a prolonged engagement
between participants and the investigator, the researchers can acquire sufficient understanding
about the different workplaces. Moreover, he can establish a relationship based on trust (Bernard,
The researcher promoted quality by using tactics aimed at ensuring honesty among the
informants when giving their responses. Basically, every participant approached was given a
chance to decline participation. Therefore, those who participated at last were genuinely willing
to participate and they offered their data freely (Brent & Slusarz, 2003). The researcher also
created the necessary rapport by appropriately introducing the participants to the research. The
researcher’s credibility has also been established. Finally, the researcher did a detailed literature
review whose aim was making the readers aware about the state of the subject.

The methods for establishing quality are justified and described sufficiently. In relation to
the data collection method, the researcher used three stages to gather the required data. The final
stage was basically aimed at assessing if the participants had changed the views they held earlier.
The researcher had prior information and knowledge about the participants, and this was a way
of ensuring that the trust between them to lead to quality data. Worth noting, the researcher gave
the participants the opportunity of declining to participate since their consent was needed before
the data collection started. The experience, qualifications, and background of the researcher were
well introduced at the start of the paper.
Many academicians would agree that rather than using purposive sampling, the
researcher should have used random sampling. Regardless of the fact that purposive sampling is
mostly used in qualitative research, random sampling negates researcher bias charges in relation
to participants’ selection. In the research, the researcher fetched the participants from Linkedin,
and he knew them personally and/ or professionally. Therefore, there were high chances of the
participants giving responses that would impress the researcher. As Janesick (2003) noted, using
random sampling ensures that the ‘unknown influences’ get distributed evenly throughout the
sample (Ahn, Park & Jung, 2009). Using purposive sampling was an inappropriate selection
tactic since the investigator would not end up confident that the informants were typically
members of the wider selected society. The sampling method used does not give assurance that
the selected participants are representative of the bigger group.
Another way through which the researcher could have promoted quality and
trustworthiness is by using triangulation. This involves using various methods when gathering
data and eventually, the collected data is compared. The methods may include individual

interviews, focus groups, and observation among others. However, the researcher only used
interviews, which might compromise the data collected.



Ahn, Y., Park, S., & Jung, J. (2009). A case study on knowledge management of Busan
Metropolitan City. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 388–398.
Bernard, H. R. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches, Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications.
Birks, M. J., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2007). Breaching the wall: Interviewing people from
other cultures. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 18(2), 150–156.
Brent, E., & Slusarz, P. (2003). “Feeling the Beat”: Intelligent coding advice from
metaknowledge in qualitative research. Social Science Computer Review, 21(3),
Janesick, V. J. (2003). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Associates. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion
and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.