|
2)
|
Is the connection to an existing body of knowledge or theory clear?
|
|
3)
|
Is the selection of cases or participants theoretically justified?
|
|
4)
|
Is the choice of the employed instrument justified?
|
|
5)
|
Is the instrument or the procedure to construct it carefully described?
|
|
6)
|
Are there clear accounts of the data collection?
|
|
7)
|
Was the data collection and record keeping systematic?
|
|
8)
|
Has the relationship between fieldworkers and subjects been considered?
|
|
9)
|
Is there evidence that the research was presented and explained to its subjects?
|
|
10)
|
Is there evidence about how the subjects perceived the research?
|
|
11)
|
Is reference made to accepted procedures for analysis?
|
|
12)
|
How systematic is the analysis?
|
|
13)
|
Is the evidence available for independent examination?
|
|
14)
|
Is there adequate discussion of how themes, concepts and categories were derived from the data?
|
|
15)
|
It is sometimes inevitable that externally given or predetermined descriptive categories are used, but have they been examined for their real meaning or any possible ambiguities?
|
|
16)
|
Is a clear distinction made between the data and their interpretation?
|
|
17)
|
Is there adequate discussion of the evidence both for and against the researcher's arguments?
|
|
18)
|
Have measures been taken to test the validity of the findings?
|
|
19)
|
Is the research clearly contextualised ?
|
|
20)
|
Are the data presented systematically?
|
|
21)
|
Though the presentation of the discursive data is always going to require more space than numerical data, is the paper as concise as possible?
|
|
22)
|
Are the results credible and appropriate?
|
|
23)
|
Have ethical issues been adequately considered?
|
