Reflecting on Reporting Guidelines in Qualitative Inquiry: Advocating for Openness or Methodological Specificity in...

Area of Science:

• Qualitative Research Methodology
• Scientific Reporting Standards
• Methodological Congruence

Background:

• Reporting guidelines enhance transparency and rigor in qualitative research.
• Existing universal checklists may not adequately address diverse qualitative methodologies.
• Tensions arise when applying standardized criteria across varied research traditions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically reflect on the application of universal reporting guidelines in qualitative research.
• To examine the limitations of tools like COREQ-32 for specific methodologies, such as Constructivist Grounded Theory.
• To advocate for the development of nuanced, method-congruent reporting standards.

Main Methods:

• Critical reflection on existing literature and reporting guidelines.
• Analysis of the epistemological and procedural features of diverse qualitative methodologies.
• Examination of critiques and emerging methodology-specific frameworks.

Main Results:

• Widely adopted tools like COREQ-32 may insufficiently capture the nuances of certain qualitative approaches.
• Rigid application of universal criteria can impede methodological congruence.
• There is a need for reporting guidance that respects the philosophical underpinnings of each qualitative method.

Conclusions:

• Reporting guidance should align with the philosophical and methodological stance of each qualitative approach.
• Nuanced, method-congruent standards are necessary to enhance transparency while preserving qualitative research richness.
• Advocacy for flexible and reflexive reporting standards that support methodological integrity.