I'm having a tiny bit of a problem trying to do a narrative lit review. I'm trying to synthesise a lot of qualitative studies together to try and understand a phenomena but they use different methodologies - grounded theory, descriptive phenomenology and so on. The problem is trying to be critical of them - there's quite a few ways of critically appraising qualitative research. Do you think it would be okay to use one set of evaluation standards for qualitative research, such as that of Lincoln and Guba (1985)? I know that this may have limitations, but at the same time I think I need to have reference standards.
:-)

Hi,

I think it's fine. I've done a review which uses all sorts of methodologies because there's so little on my subject I have to grab every scrap I could find. I think Lincoln and Guba would be fine as long as you can justify it. I'm using the CASP guidelines because they provide guidelines for all sorts of designs and I do NHS research and they were developed by an NHS affiliated body blah blah blah. So, even though I think they can be a bit rubbish (especially for qualitative, the only type they feel the need to assess the "ethical issues" as part of the appraisal. Because RCTs don't have any right????) they fit in a pragmatic way with my intended readership.

I hope that makes sense but I'm in the countdown to submission so very little I say makes sense at the moment!

Good luck and take care.

A

Thanks A116. I was thinking along those lines. It seems like everyone has their own criteria anyway, but Lincoln and Guba's have stood the test of time. I'll stick with them and argue my case, acknowledging that there will be limitations.