1997/12/01 by Jamie Baxter, John Eyles · 1,171 citations
Agricultural and Biological Sciences · Decision Sciences · Engineering · Social Sciences · #Argument (complex analysis) #Computer science #Empirical research #Engineering #Engineering ethics #Epistemology #Evaluation and Performance Assessment #Frame (networking) #Inference #Management science #Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics #Qualitative research #Rigour #Rural development and sustainability #Set (abstract data type) #Social science #Sociology #Work (physics)
paper · doi:10.1111/j.0020-2754.1997.00505.x
published in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22(4), 505-525 (Wiley)
openalex publication_date 1997/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
A review of 31 empirical and eighteen substantive papers by qualitative social geographers mainly using in‐depth interviews reveals little explicit reference to the principle(s) adopted to enhance ‘rigour’ and to ensure meaningful inference. Given the modest explicit discussion of evaluative criteria in these papers, a scheme from evaluation research itself is critically reviewed. A set of evaluation questions derived from this review and their application to an empirical piece of qualitative work frame an argument for a general set of criteria rather than rigid rules for assessing qualitative work. Such criteria can serve as anchor points for qualitative evaluation.