This special issue of Qualitative Psychology questions core ideas which have shaped qualitative methods in psychology. These ideas were influenced by objectivistic and behavioristic assumptions in psychological methods whose logic is ill-fitting for qualitative research. Four articles describe new approaches to considering qualitative methods that break from these confines. Each describes a method or assumption that has been seen as foundational in the field of qualitative research. They concern issues of consensus, intersubjective confirmation, and epistemic privilege; the use of member checking as an evaluation of methodological integrity; the role of replication in qualitative methods; and the contributions of qualitative methods in investigations of causality. The introduction to the sectionopens in new window (pp. 359-364, Levitt, Heidi M., https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000222opens in new window [open access]) summarizes the central problem that each article is wrestling with and considers why at this point, qualitative researchers are actively engaged in a rethinking of the coherence of their methodology.
The four articles in this special section of Qualitative Inquiry each take up a practice or belief that has been seen as a given in many circles of qualitative researchers. Instead of dismissing the utility of the role of replication in qualitative research, Tuval-Mashiach’s (2021) article “Is replication relevant for qualitative research?opens in new window” (pp. 365-377, https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000217opens in new window) examines what constitutes appropriate replication in the case of qualitative research and the strategies that might support this work. Guidance is provided to researchers on critical issues in executing these studies while honoring the logic inherent in qualitative analyses.
Similarly, the investigation of causal relationships often has been framed as beyond the reach of qualitative methods. Maxwell’s (2021) article “The importance of qualitative research for investigating causationopens in new window” (pp. 378-388, https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000219opens in new window) describes new standards for research investigating causal effects. Experimental studies alone are insufficient, and instead a mixed-methods program of research is proposed that combines qualitative investigations of causal processes with quantitative evaluations of the strengths of causal effects.
In a third article entitled “Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative researchopens in new window,” Motulsky (2021, pp. 389-406, https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215opens in new window) reconsiders current practices pertaining to the procedure of member checking. Member checking entails seeking participants’ feedback on researchers’ data or interpretations. This procedure has been set by some journals as a requirement for qualitative research as a necessary form of external confirmation. In her article, Motulsky considers the drawbacks of member checking. She introduces a new process of Reflexive participant collaboration as a more congruent framework to support member checking in critical and participatory approaches to qualitative research.
Finally, Levitt, Ipekci, et al.’s article “Intersubjective recognition as the methodological enactment of epistemic privilege: A critical basis for consensus and intersubjective confirmation proceduresopens in new window” (2021, pp. 407-427, https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000206opens in new window) consider the goal of intersubjective confirmation, which has been posited as the justification for many confirmation-based qualitative procedures (e.g., consensus, auditing, member checking). These authors propose a methodological translation of epistemic privilege, a critical feminist standpoint philosophy that directs researchers to study the experiences of people who are on the margins of a phenomenon. The authors describe how researchers, who reformulate these procedures in accordance with intersubjective recognition can strengthen findings in a manner consistent with critical constructivist assumptions.