Part II. Rigour in qualitativeresearch: complexitiesand solutions

Anthony G Tuckett outlines the strategies and operationaltechniques he used to attain rigour in a qualitative researchstudy through relying on Guba and Lincoln's trustworthinesscriterion. Research strategies such as use of personal journals,audio recording and transcript auditing, and operationaltechniques Including triangulation strategies and peer review,are examined

• rigour• trustworthiness• operational techniques• triangulation strategies

IntroductionThis article discusses the trustworthiness criterion of Cuba and Lincoln (1989)

and research strategies and operational techniques (Lincoln and Guba 1985)

I employed to meet it in a qualitative research study into truth-telling in high-

level (nursing home) aged care.

Practical guidance is provided for handling some of the issues and complexi-

ties related to maintaining rigour in qualitative research. Readers may more

fully understand my experiences, research choices and theoretical position by

referring to the first article in this two-part series (Tuckett 2004a); other related

papers have also been published (Tuckett and Stewart 2004, Tuckett and

Stewart 2004a. Tuckett 2004b).

NURSERESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1 29

Rigour in qualitative researchI would have liked to have honoured Sandelowski's (1993) commentary, which

states that:

'research is both a creative and destructive process: we make things

up and out of our data, but we often inadvertently kill the thing we want

to understand in the process. Similarly, we can preserve or kill the spirit

of qualitative work: we can soften our notion of [rigour] to include the

playfulness, soulfutness. imagination, and technique we associate with

more artistic endeavours, or we can harden it by the uncritical applica-

tion of njles. The choice is ours: [rigour] or rigor mortis.'

In so doing, I might have been more playful, sometimes soulful and even artistic.

But rigour in qualitative research 'is as much situated and linked to the politics

and particularities' of centres for research as it is to 'following established meth-

ods and practices' (Ezzy 2002). As a result. I took the following approaches.

The language (and the meanings attached to it) that describes terms for

establishing and assessing rigour in qualitative research vary from that of tra-

ditional positivist studies. But the criteria for rigour in qualitative studies - the

'goodness criteria' (Miles and Huberman 1 994) or 'trustworthiness' criterion

(Lincoln and Guba 1985) - 'parallel' traditional terms (Schwandt 1 997, Cuba

and Lincoln 1989).

Some care is required to avoid uncertainty with these parallel concepts. On

the one hand, the understanding that positivist reliability can be aligned to

'confirmability' (Clarke and Wheeler 1992) is incorrect. On the other. Zyzanski

et a/'s (1992) claim that 'reliability is equivalent to credibility and depend-

ability, as compared to validity, which is closer to confirmability' indicates

confusion. And the assertion that Lincoln and Cuba's (1985) tnjstworthiness

criterion includes 'triangulation. prolonged engagement, negative case analysis

and auditing' (Caulley 1999) is imprecise.

Drawing from the literature. Table 1 (reading left-to-right) shows the

positivist rigour criteria and associated qualitative rigour criteria for trust-

worthiness (Cuba and Lincoln 1989), evaluation criteria (Guba and Lincoln

1981) and criteria for rigour (Sandelowski 1986). It then shows the respec-

tive research strategies and operational techniques (Lincoln and Cuba 1985)

I employed in the study.

30 NUFlSERESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1

.> o

co

§ a

03a.O <

o -Q^-i.;

^ E :F

E QJ

CT] "O O

i P u

gs

u

i•

«

1

B

;

1

oncr

it•v

alu

ati

1

1

iria

1

Rig

our

>̂,

>ed

ibilit

ity

Cdi

bil

&u

lity

valic

Inte

rnal

t

tJ3"Sa:

CTl • -0 0 COCTl tJ l

NURSERESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1 31

Research strategyResearcher as instrument

The credibility of research resides in part in the skill and competence of the

researcher (Angen 2000), Sandelowski (2002) argues that where interviewing

defines the qualitative research endeavour, training is required, I had served

a 'period of apprenticeship' that involved revievi'ing the relevant literature

and experience in:

• group and in-depth interview methods (Tuckett 1998, Angen 2000)

• facilitating small and large group discussions among undergraduate and post-

registration nursing students focusing on general healthcare issues and ethics

• interviewing residents, patients and patients' families during geriatric, acute

adult, and emergency paediatric admissions to hospital

• mentoring undergraduate nursing students in high-level (nursing home)

aged care clinical praaicums since 1992.

Field notes and personal joumals

Keeping field notes contributed to the credibility and dependability of the

study. Field notes are 'analytical in themselves' in that they contain 'immedi-

ate and later perceptions and thoughts' about the research participants (Rose

and Webb 1998, Tuckett 2004b). As such, field notes were the medium for

employing strategies that facilitated constant comparison of data (contributing

specifically to credibility). They also:

• became another "data source' that contributed to credibility and depend-

ability in the context of data triangulation (Hlgginbotham et al 2001, Rice

and Ezzy 2000)

• provided a record of coding, writing and theorising that can be made available

for auditing

• offered a vehicle for reflection about the research process (Koch 1994) and my

role and potential influence on data collection.

In the context of contributing to trustworthiness, the research participants'

personal journals assisted in reducing tv̂ 'O potentially negative influences on

credible data.

First, in common with other researchers, I was concerned about how far the

research process itself could influence the findings (Tuckett et al 1985), For

32 NURSERESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1

instance, I tape recorded care providers and residents during interviews; could

this process make them self-conscious and affect their responses? The potential

threat to credibility this posed was diminished through the use of the research

participants' personal journals. It gave them an opportunity to write down their

understandings and meaning about truth-telling before (or after) the group

discussion (Tuckett and Stewart 2004, Tuckett and Stewart 2004a).

Second, the research participants' personal joumals reduced 'groupthink'

(MacDougall and Baum 1997) or the 'bandwagon' effect (Carey 1995). in

which participants acquiesce to the majority view and are unwilling to dissent

and therefore remain quiet (Sim 1998), As with the potential effect of a tape

recorder, the potential threat to credibility posed by groupthink was tempered

by offering research participants the opportunity to write down their impres-

sions, views, and understandings before the group discussion began.

I had generated four 'stories' from my preliminary qualitative study into

lying and deception in general nursing practice (Tuckett 1998). The 'stories'

provided an element of homogeneity for the group interview and personal

journals. In this way, the story as the stimulus increased the "consistency of

judgement' about the raw information by increasing (to some extent) the

'consistency of setting' in which the data were collected (Boyatzis 1998.

Goodwin and Goodwin 1984).

Tape recorder, thematic log and auditing transcripts

The tape recording aimed to counter criticism of qualitative research as "prone

to systematic bias' (May 1991), Recording group discussions and follow-up in-

depth interviews facilitated credibility and dependability of the data collection

procedure (Perakyla 1997). Bias during analysis was also eliminated through

member checking and triangulation (see below).

I kept a thematic log during the group discussion and follow-up interview as

part of my field notes, and this added to the overall accuracy (or 'authenticity'

(Cutcliffe and McKenna 2002), or 'truth value' (Sandelowski 1986, Ericksen

and Henderson 1992. Miles and Huberman 1994). I used the thematic log

to summarise a group discussion or interview, noting immediately in the field

notes any themes that captured ideas that were credible to the participants

(Tuckett and Stewart 2004).

NURStRESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1 33

interviewing

Transcript auditing aimed to ensure accuracy, A transcriber was hired to cre-

ate the verbatim transcript, which meant that I had to audit every transcript

against the original audio tape. Auditing transcripts involves careful listening,

reading, re-reading, and 'preliminary thematic identification (memoing)' of

the taped and transcribed text (Miles and Huberman 1994), It was a lengthy

process, but it was extremely important for me in getting close contact and

familiarity with the data and, consequently, in gaining confidence in its overall

trustworthiness (Boyatzis 1998).

In addition, marginal remarks - that is, the writing of ideas - were made

directly onto the transcript. While codes were written on the left-hand side of

the transcript page, corresponding remarks were written on the right-hand side

(Miles and Huberman 1994). Remarks included:

t ideas about ideas (theorising)

n instructions for me when seeking clarification in the follow-up in-depth

interview

• 'negative cases' (see below) (Perakyla 1997)

cross references to data within the same transcript or references to data in

other transcripts.

Making remarks during the transcript reading not only erected signposts for

later reflection, but also reduced the tedium of coding (Miles and Huberman

1994). In reducing the tedium of coding, marginal remarks helped 'prevent or

lessen entirs and distractions' related to my mood and style (Boyatzis 1998).

Auditing transcripts was also integral to the operational technique of mem-

ber checking (see below). Effective member checking relied on the production

of an accurate transcript, given that an aim was to produce a valid research

account (both descriptive and theoretical).

Operational techniquesPurposeful/theoretical sampling and constant comparison

The operational techniques of purposeful/theoretical sampling and constant

comparison were discussed in the first article of this two-part series (Tuckett

2004a). Purposeful/theoretical sampling contributes to credibility (Roberts

and Burke 1989, Brink 1991) because participants were sought on the

grounds that they were likely to have and share their understanding of truth-

34 IJIJRSERESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1

telling, Transferability is facilitated because sampling aimed to include 'the

widest possible range of information for inclusion in the thick description'

(Lincoln and Guba 1985). Constant comparison of data added to credibility

(Ambert eta! 1995, Brink 1991) since the research strategies employed con-

tributed to data accuracy.

Atypical (negative) case

Following-up the atypical experience (Morse 1991) or the 'deviant case'

(Perakyla 1997) challenged the adequacy of insights, and in turn challenged

me to formulate more dependable (Brink 1991) and credible conclusions

(Baum 2002, Brink 1991, Denzin 1989, Guba and Lincoln 1989, Luborsky

1994, Mays and Pope 1995, Miles and Huberman 1994), Rather than discount

those participants deemed outside the 'general', the atypical (negative) case

was analysed to 'give impetus, strength and rigour' to the development of my

argument (Perakyla 1997).

Registered nurse (A-RNl) represented an atypical case. A-RNl's under-

standing about truth-telling was embedded not only in her role as a regis-

tered nurse (team leader), but also as a daughter - one of the residents in

her care was her own mother. Rather than set her views aside as 'different',

she was purposefully followed-up in an interview because she gave me an

insight into the consequences of this dual role/relationship and its impact on

her understandings of truth-telling.

Member checking

Many writers define a process of confirming or refuting meaning as 'sending

it back' to the participants to ensure that what was understood was credible

(Baum 2002, Ambert ef a/1995, Guba and Lincoln 1989, Ramos 1989, Kvale

1983), Not all agree, however, that 'member checking' (Fon-est 1989) or

'respondent validation' serves a useful purpose (Angen 2000, Morse 1991.

Sandelowski 2002).

Angen (2000) identifies member checking as a mechanism for attempting

to identify a 'fixed' or 'static' truth - a 'fixed reality'. This is inconsistent with

the view that meaning and understanding are open to interpretation over

time, when framed in symbolic interactionism and social constructionism

NUfiSt^RESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1 35

interviewing

(my theoretical stance and epistemology). Sandelowski (2002) believes that

"members are not always the best judge" of what counts for valid research.

This view, that members make incompetent judges (Morse 1991), is not one

1 entirely share.

I took the view in the study that participants needed to recognise something

of themselves and their world in the theorising if any claim for credibility was

to be made. Furthermore, reading Morse closely, she states that member check-

ing 'as an indicator of validity is nonsense' when invoked at the end of the

study. What Morse does advocate, and what was implemented in this research,

was the verification of content 'step by step, piece by piece, during the research

process' (Morse 1991. italics added).

An example of member checking occurred at a follow-up in-depth inter-

view, after initial coding, writing and theorising following the group discus-

sion. The exchange shown in Box 1 involves registered nurse D-RN4 (incom-

plete exemplar).

In this example, member checking allowed me not just to 'play back' what

the research participant had said (description), but also to clarify and "inter-

pret the significance of their self understanding' in ways the participant may

not have been able to (theorising) (Grant and Giddings 2002).

Two trianguiations: method(ological) and investigator

Triangulation has widespread support as an operational technique for enhanc-

ing credibility (Ambert era/1995. Baum 2002, Lincoln and Guba 1985, Willms

and Johnson 1993) and dependability (Baum 2002. Boyatzis 1998. Denzin

1989. Goodwin and Goodwin 1984, Miles and Hubemnan 1994).

Trianguiation is understood as 'involving varieties of data, investigators,

and theories, as well as methodologies' in the investigation of the same

phenomenon (Denzin 1989). In this definition and attendant explanation,

'methodologies' actually refers to methods (Bednarz 1983, cited in Greene

and McGlintock 1985).

The rationale for triangulation is that it attempts to overcome any inherent

weakness or bias of a single research strategy. Trustworthiness in my qualita-

tive research was premised on two types of triangulation - 'method(ological)'

and 'investigator' (Denzin 1989).

36NIJRSf.RESEARCHER2005. 13, 1

Box 1 Member checking example

Researcher (AT): Let me just run past you three statements I want you to critique

D-RN4\ Yes

Researcher (AT):.. .There may be events or behaviours that the family are not told

about - (because of the) assessment that this will cause upset to the family ... family has

no control and the event or behaviour does not alter the overall resident's planned care

D-RN4: I agree with tha t . . . it's sort of a need to know basis... yes, I think we

would omit it,

Method(ological) triangulation refers to combining dissimilar techniques

for data collection about the same phenomenon. Specifically, between-meth-

od or cross-method triangulation was used, whereby different data collection

methods (such as the personal joumal. group discussion, interview and my

field journal) were used to collect data about truth-telling (Denzin 1989,

Willms and Johnson 1993, Tuckett and Stewart 2004, Tuckett and Stewart

2004a). Gonsequently, any potential weaknesses in, for example, the group

discussion (groupthink) or interview (perceived absence of anonymity) were

countered by the research participants' personal journals.

A caveat is necessary to balance the proposition that methodological

triangulation promotes credibility (Miles and Huberman 1994). It aims

to enhance the credibility of overall findings through congruence and/or

complementarity of the data from each method. I examined data to find

'similarity, consistency or congruence of results' and sought 'one set of (data)

enriching, expanding upon, clarifying or illustrating the other' (Greene and

McClintock 1985). I noted in the field notes my awareness of congruence:

'July 27 2001: Thematic congruence: (1) Emergence from inter-

views and journal agree. (2). Emergence and congruence from differ-

ent carer groups ie PCA*—'RN (3) Emergence and congruence from

across care iocales.'

Later I was able to note my awareness of complementarity:

'September 17 2001: Credlbiiity 6i (trianguiation/dependability):

different carer(s) perceive X about other carer(s) Y and carer(s) Y

describe ovi/n perception as X. ie carer describes the action, event,

understanding of the nurse and the nurse spontaneously expresses

consistency (same-same).'

NURSERESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1 37

Investigator trianguJation uses multiple observers, as opposed to a single

observer (Denzin 1989), Triangulation in my research extends to triangulating

analysts (Patton 1990. Denzin 1989) - that is. utilising a second investigator

(my academic supervisor) to analyse some of the data and compare findings.

As with the caveat for method(ological) triangulation. some clarification is

required regarding the proposition that investigator triangulation pn^motes

dependability (Miles and Huberman 1994. Denzin 1989). During those occa-

sions in which the academic supervisor and I (as principal researcher) inde-

pendently analysed the same qualitative data and then compared findings,

the intent was not to build consensual understanding per se. but rather to seek

multiple meanings to add breadth and depth to the analysis (Denzin 1989).

The process of triangulating analysts occurred on three occasions. In each

case, the academic supervisor and I independently reviewed an audited tran-

script. 'Marginal notes' were also made on the transcripts by the second inves-

tigator (Miles and Huberman 1994). The academic supervisor and I then met

for a discussion about our respective conclusions. I recorded the congruence

and/or complementarity of the triangulation process in my field journal.

Three group discussion interviews were chosen - the group discussion for

personal care assistants (PCA) at nursing home A. the residents at nursing home

C and the registered nurses (RN) at nursing home D. The rationale for selecting

these was:

• nursing home A was the site for the first group interview of personal carer

assistants, evidenced the case for separating registered nurses and personal

carer assistants (homogenising according to title), and contained an interest-

ing atypical case

• nursing home C represented an early resident group and was the source for

an emerging idea about awareness theory (Claser and Strauss 1965). namely,

residents' awareness that family and care providers invoke 'Don't Tell Mum'

• nursing home D represented a later registered nurses group and was the

source for an idea about 'easing and omitting' the truth in the residents'

'best interests', and evidenced congruence with residents' claim that family

'Don't Tell Mum".

The use of a second investigator for improving trustworthiness in this research

enabled the two observers to discuss each observation until agreement was

38 NURSERESEARCHER 2005. 13, 1

reached (Boyatzis 1998). Instances occurred during the comparison of find-

ings where agreement was facilitated by my closer relationship with the data

through my constant comparison of data and knowledge of the participant's

voice, emotions and body language from the group discussion, as recorded in

the field notes (Tuckett and Stewart 2004)

Thick descriptior]

Thick description is proposed as advancing the claim for transferability of a

qualitative study (Miles and Huberman 1994. Lincoln and Cuba 1985), There

is some agreement that 'the burden of proof for claimed transferability is on

the receiver (consumer)' (Guba and Lincoln 1989) of the research. To this end.

the consumer, not the researcher, 'does the generalisation ... it is up to the

consumer to decide what aspects of the case apply in new contexts' (Wehlage

1981 cited in Peshkin 1993. italics added).

It is the knowledge that emanates from the study (Morse 1999) that Is to

be transferable. For the knowledge to be generalisable. the 'thick' description

must include the research setting and infonnation about participants, as well

as in-context data and credible interpretation. Information and description of

this kind was recorded and stored in:

my field notes (field journal - see Tuckett and Stewart 2004)

4 coded electronic and hard copy demographic and data files.

Peer review

Peer review, as a 'type of investigator triangulation' (Van der Heide 2001)

involved the use of an 'objective other'. A reviewer with the following creden-

tials was identified:

« previous professional experience as the Director of Human Resources for State

Education in Queensland (Australia) and therefore knowledgeable about com-

munication in organisations

B experience with overseeing, conducting and implementing research in educa-

tion, most cun^ntly for Volunteering Queensland

• previous peer reviewer of Tuckett (1998)

current service as volunteer manager for Volunteering Queensland

experience of attending three times a week to his 98-year-old father who is a

NURSFRESEARCHER 2005. 13, 1 39

rrri nVi rm

resident at a nursing home operated by a different organisation than the one

in this research.

The reviewer read and critiqued the research data and interpretations. His

meticulous reading and marginal notes contributed to my additional reflec-

tion on process and content. Overall, the reviev\/er concluded that the work

vt'as 'comparable to my current nursing home experience'. He found the

research "interesting' and was 'associating with it the whole time' (research-

er's field notes).

Conclusion

This article has reviewed Guba and Lincoln's (1989) trustvt'orthiness criterion

and the research strategies and operational techniques I employed to meet

these criteria. As an examination of a rigour route in qualitative research,

research strategies including the use of a field journal and research participants'

personal journals, audio recording and transcript auditing, and keeping a the-

matic log during interviews were discussed and reviewed. Additionally, opera-

tional techniques, including using the atypical (negative) case, member check-

ing, triangulation strategies, thick description and peer review were analysed.

Relying on accepted methods literature, this article presents examples from

practice as a means to guide both novice and experienced nurse researchers in

the sometimes difficult area of maintaining rigour in qualitative research.

Anthony G Tuckett RN, MA (Research), PostGrad Dip, Phil, BN, PhD,Senior Lecturer at The University of Queensland, Faculty of Health,School of Nursing, Australia.

AcknowledgementsI acknowledge the supervisory role of Associate Professor DE Stewart, Schoolof Public Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus,Queensland, Australia. I would like to also thank colleagues of the CentaurMemorial Fund for Nurses, Queensland, for partially funding the researchTruth-telling in Aged Care: a Qualitative Study. This paper is adapted fromthe author's doctoral thesis.

This article has been subject to double-blind review

40 NURSfRESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1

Ambert Aetal{]995) Understanding andevaluating qualitative research Journal ofMarriage & the Family. 57, 4, 879-893.

Angen M (2000) Evaluating interpretiveinquiry: reviewing the validity debate andopening the dialogue. Quaiitative i-lealthResearch. 10, 3, 378-395. (Retheved

November 22, 2002. from ProQuest database )

Baum F (2002) The New Pubiic Health. SoutbMelbourne, VIC, Oxford University Press,

Boyatzis R (1998) Transforming QualitativeInformation: Thematic Analysis and CodeDevelopment. London, Sage,

Brink P(1991) Issues of reliability and validity.In Morse J (Ed) Qualitative Nursing Research. AContemporary Dialogue. London, Sage,

Carey M (1995) Comment: concerns in theanalysis of focus group data. Qualitative HealthResearch. 5,4.487-495.

Caulley D (1999) A critical review of Lincoln andGuba's trustworthiness criteria for qualitativeresearch. Association for Qualitative Research.Issues of Rigour in Qualitative Research.Melbourne, Australia.

Clarke J, Wheeler S (1992) A view of thephenomenon of caring m nursing practice.Journai of Advanced Nursing. 17, 11, 1283-1290.

Cutcliffe J, McKenna H (2002) V^ben do weknow what we know? Constdenng the truthof research findings and the craft of qualitativeresearch. International Journal of Nursing

.39,6,611-618,

Denzin N (1989) 7?>e Research Act A TheoreticalIntroduction to Sociological Meti^ods. Thirdedition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall

Ericksen J, Henderson A (1992) V /̂itnes5ingfamily violence: the children's expenence. Journaiof Advanced Nursing. 17. 10, 1200-1209.

Ezzy D (2002) Qualitative Analysis: Practice andInnovation. Crows Nest, NSW, Allen & Unwin,

Forrest D (1989) Tbe expenence of caring.Journal of Advanced Nursing. 14, 10, 815-823.

Glaser B, Strauss A {1965) Awareness of Dying.Cbicago, IL, Aldine.

Goodwin L. Goodwin W (1984) Are validityand reliability 'relevant' in qualitative evaluationresearch? Evaluation S The Health Professions.7.4,413-426.

Grant B, Giddings L (2002) Making sense ofmethodologies: a paradigm framework for thenovice researcher Contemporary Nurse. 13, 1,10-28.

Greene J. McClintock C (1985) Triangulation inevaluation Evaluation Review. 9, 5. 523-545

Guba E. Lincoln Y (1981) fffecfwfi'd/uar/on,San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass

Guba E, Lincoln Y (1989) Fourth GenerationEvaiuation. London. Sage.

Higginbotham N et al {200]) Heaith SocialScience: A Transdisciplinary and ComplexityPer5peaive. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Koch T (1994) Establisbing ngour in qualitativeresearch: a decision trail. Journal of AdvancedNursing 19, 5.976-986.

Kvale S (1983) The qualitative research interview:a pbenomenological and hermeneutical modeof understanding. Jooma/of P/ienomeno/og/ca/Psychology 14, 2, 171-196.

Lincoln Y, Guba E {^ 985) Naturalistic Inquiry.London, Sage,

Luborsky M (1994) Identification and analysisof themes and patterns. In Gubrium I, SanakarA (Eds) Qualitative Methods in Aging Research.London, Sage

MacDougall C, 8aum F (1997) Tbe devil'sadvocate: a strategy to avoid group think andstimulate discussion in focus groups. QualitativeHealth Research. 7, 4, 532-541,

May K (1991) Interview techniques inqualitative research: concerns and challenges.In Morse J (Ed) Qualitative Nursing Research. AContemporary Dialogue. London, Sage,

Mays N, Pope C (1995) Rigour and qualitativeresearch. British Medical Journal (international).311,6997, 109-112. (Retrieved September 15,1998, from CINAHL database.)

Miles M, Huberman A (1994) 4nfxpandedSource Book: Quaiitative Data Analysis. Secondedition, London, Sage.

NURSFRESEARCHER 2005, 13, 1 41

Morse J (1991) Strategies for sampling.In Morse J (Ed) Qualitative Nursing Research.a Contemporary Dialogue. London, Sage.

Patton M (1990) Qualilative Evaluation andResearch Methods. London, Sage.

Pecchioni L, Nussbaum J (2000) The influence ofautonomy and paternalism on communicativebehaviours in mother-daughter relationshipsprior to dependency. Health Communication.12,4.317-338.

Perakyla A (1997) Reliability and validity inresearch based on tapes and transcripts. InSilverman D (Ed) Qualitative Research: Theory,Methods and Practice. London, Sage.

Peshkin A (1993) The goodness of qualitativeresearch. Educational Researcher. 22. 2, 24-30.

Ramos M (1989) Some ethical implications ofqualitative research. Research in Nursing andHealth. 12, 1, 57-63.

Rice P, Ezzy D (2000) Qualitative ResearchMethods: A Health Focus. South Melbourne,VIC, Oxford University Press.

Roberts C, Burke S (1989) Nursing Research: AQuan tita tive and Qualitative Approach. Boston,Jones and Bartlett.

Rose K, Webb C (1998) Analyzing data;maintaining rigor in a qualitative study.Qualitative Health Research 8. 4, 556-562.

Sandelowski M (1993) Rigor or rigor mortis: theproblem of rigor in qualitative research revisited.Advances in Nursing Science. 16, 2. 1-8.

Sandelowski M (1986) The problem of rigor inqualitative research. Applied Nursing Science. 8,3, 27-37.

Sandetowski M (2002) Reembodying qualitativeinquiry. Qualitative Health Research. 12, 1, 104-115. (Retrieved January 23, 2003, from ProQuestdatabase)

Schwanbt T (1997) Qualitative Inquiry. London,Sage.

Sim J (1998) Collecting and analysing qualitativedata: issues raised by the focus group. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing. 28, 2, 345-3S2. (RetrievedNovember 11, 2002, from CINAHL database.)

Tuckett A (1998) 'Bending the truth':professionals' narratives about lying anddeception in nursing praaice. InternationalJournal of Nursing Studies. 35, 5, 292-302,

Tuckett A (2004a) Qualitative research sampling:the very real complexities. Nurse Researcher.12, 1,47-61.

Tuckett A (2004b) A review of literature: truth-teliing in clinical practice and the reasons for andagainst it. Nursing Ethics. 11,5, 500-513.

Tuckett A, Stewart D (2004) Collecting qualitativedata; Part 1 Journal as a method: experience,rationale and limitations. Contemporary Nurse.16,1-2,104-113.

Tuckett A, Stewart D (2004a) Colleaingqualitative data: Part II Group discussion asa method: experience, rationale, limitations.Contemporary Nurse. 16, 3, 240-251.

Tuckett D ef a/ (1985) Meetings Between Experts:An Approach to Sharing Ideas in MedicalConsultations. London: Travistock.

Van der Heide G (2001) Qualitative analysisissues. Queensland University of Technology.7th International Health Summer School,Expanding New Horizons in Public Health,Qualitative Research Methods for Public HealthSeminar. Brisbane, Australia.

Willms D, Johnson N (1993) Essentials inQualitative Research: A Notebook for the Field.Hamilton, Ontario, McMaster University.

Zyzanski S et al (1992). Qualitative research:perspectives on the future In Crabtree B, MillerW (Eds) Doing Quaiitative Research. NewburyPark, CA, Sage. Cited in Boyatzis R (1998)Transforming Qualitative information: ThematicAnalysis and Code Development. London, Sage.

Online archive

For related articles and author guidelines

visit our online archive at vww^.

nurseresearcher.co.uk

42 NURSFRESEARCHER 2005, 1 3, 1