Rigor is critical for any research as it determines the trustworthiness of the collected data, appropriateness of the analysis strategies, and the results’ value. The criteria can be viewed through a study’s rationale, sampling, design, testing, discussion, and limitations (Gray et al., 2021). Furthermore, the information gathered and analyzed for unlike types of research addresses different components of rigor. For qualitative research, data credibility, transferability, and dependability are critical, while for quantitative analysis, accuracy and confirmability are essential (Gray et al., 2021). This paper aims to explore which type of research is inherently more rigorous and, based on the qualitative research example, discuss how information collection and analysis promote rigor.
Quantitative and qualitative research have various distinguishes, and they influence the way scientists and scholars perceive rigor. The first type of studying involves numerical data, resulting in statistics or observations based on the calculated formulas (Gray et al., 2021). The second, in the opposite, explores textual records, such as interviews of participants, to retrieve patterns or dependencies (Smith & Firth,2011). People tend to perceive statistical data as more credible, therefore quantitative research can be inherently more rigorous (Gray et al., 2021). Moreover, testing strategies are more accurate for the numeric results; consequently, they are less complicated to confirm.
Another reason why quantitative research might be considered more rigorous is that it commonly includes a more extensive sampling, making the results trustworthy (Gray et al., 2021). Qualitative research is different by design, and, with fewer participants, it provides a broader scope of information. Its rigor can be questioned due to the biases of sampling groups or the absence of strict data analysis strategies (Smith & Firth,2011). Nevertheless, qualitative research is necessary to notice the tendencies in society, adjust healthcare practices, and retrieve evidence-based recommendations based on real experiences.
The recent COVID-19 pandemic became a foundation for numerous qualitative research discussing how healthcare providers dealt with continuous emergencies. For instance, Galehdar et al. conducted “Exploring nurses’ perception of taking care of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID‐19): A qualitative study” to reveal how the caregivers reacted to the interaction with infected clients. Galehdar et al. (2021) claim that “this qualitative study was performed using the conventional content analysis method” (p. 171). Indeed, after the purposeful sampling, 13 nurses were interviewed, and the results were analyzed based on Lundman and Graneheim’s approach (Galehdar et al., 2021). Conversations with participants revealed that their perception of caregiving involved care erosion, nursing professional growth, and necessities.
The research topic is actual for the current healthcare industry’s conditions, and the results created a foundation for improving the nursing practices. The qualitative data gathered through the interviews can be considered rigor because purposeful sampling was applied to select the participants. Moreover, the analysis included describing the nurses’ characteristics and categorization of their responses, which are the significant results for this type of research (Johnson et al., 2020).
Galehdar et al. (2021) state that “the participants’ opinions were verified for the accuracy of the codes and interpretations, and if the codes contradicted the participants’ comments, the codes were corrected accordingly” (p. 176). This credibility check addresses the trustworthiness of the research and scientists’ intentions. Lastly, the analyzed study promoted rigor because the categories retrieved deepen the topic of healthcare providers’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic and can be a foundation for quantitative research with a more extensive sampling.
Quantitative studies are commonly perceived as more rigorous due to the larger sampling size and numeric results. Qualitative research requires different practices to approve rigor, and the study about nurses’ perception of taking care of patients with coronavirus disease included several strategies. The scientists applied purposeful sampling, Lundman and Graneheim’s analysis approach, and addressed trustworthiness by checking the interviews’ codes. Scientists must address rigor before they conduct a study, regardless of its qualitative or quantitative style.
References
Galehdar, N., Toulabi, T., Kamran, A., & Heydari, H. (2021). Exploring nurses’ perception of taking care of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID‐19): A qualitative study. Nursing Open, 8(1), 171-179. Web.
Gray, J.R., Grove, S.K., & Sutherland, S. (2021). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th ed.). Saunders Elsevier.
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1). Web.
Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: The framework approach. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 52-62. Web.