Qualitative Research: The “good,” the “bad,” the “ugly”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24377/EJQRP.article3104Abstract
This article explores what constitutes “Good,” “Bad,” and “Ugly” qualitative research towards more fully appreciating of the nature and vision of its project. In the first two sections, I define qualitative research and map variants. Then, after highlighting qualitative evaluation criteria, I explore key issues and themes of what seems to make research “Good,” “Bad,” or “Ugly”. In the latter half of the paper, I focus specifically on four broad types of qualitative research (literature review, phenomenology, narrative-ethnographic research and discourse analysis), critically discussing a good exemplar of each. To make my strategic selections more transparent and show my role in the construction of this paper, reflexive passages are offered. Here, I engage versions of personal/introspective and methodological/contextual reflexivity plus utilise some embodied and ethical reflexivity.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 09-10-2024 (2)
- 24-09-2024 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Linda Finlay

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The copyright of content in the European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the Journal. Journal articles are published as Open Access under a Creative Commons License which allows free download and use of the articles with appropriate attribution (to both the author and European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy) for educational and other non-commercial use.