example of qualitative research article critique

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 22, Issue 1
• How to appraise qualitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Calvin Moorley 1 ,
• Xabi Cathala 2
• 1 Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care , London South Bank University , London , UK
• 2 Institute of Vocational Learning , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Calvin Moorley, Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK; Moorleyc{at}lsbu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2018-103044

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

In order to make a decision about implementing evidence into practice, nurses need to be able to critically appraise research. Nurses also have a professional responsibility to maintain up-to-date practice. 1 This paper provides a guide on how to critically appraise a qualitative research paper.

What is qualitative research?

• View inline

Useful terms

Some of the qualitative approaches used in nursing research include grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, case study (can lend itself to mixed methods) and narrative analysis. The data collection methods used in qualitative research include in depth interviews, focus groups, observations and stories in the form of diaries or other documents. 3

Authenticity

Title, keywords, authors and abstract.

In a previous paper, we discussed how the title, keywords, authors’ positions and affiliations and abstract can influence the authenticity and readability of quantitative research papers, 4 the same applies to qualitative research. However, other areas such as the purpose of the study and the research question, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, sampling and methodology also need consideration when appraising a qualitative paper.

Purpose and question

The topic under investigation in the study should be guided by a clear research question or a statement of the problem or purpose. An example of a statement can be seen in table 2 . Unlike most quantitative studies, qualitative research does not seek to test a hypothesis. The research statement should be specific to the problem and should be reflected in the design. This will inform the reader of what will be studied and justify the purpose of the study. 5

Example of research question and problem statement

An appropriate literature review should have been conducted and summarised in the paper. It should be linked to the subject, using peer-reviewed primary research which is up to date. We suggest papers with a age limit of 5–8 years excluding original work. The literature review should give the reader a balanced view on what has been written on the subject. It is worth noting that for some qualitative approaches some literature reviews are conducted after the data collection to minimise bias, for example, in grounded theory studies. In phenomenological studies, the review sometimes occurs after the data analysis. If this is the case, the author(s) should make this clear.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Most authors use the terms theoretical and conceptual frameworks interchangeably. Usually, a theoretical framework is used when research is underpinned by one theory that aims to help predict, explain and understand the topic investigated. A theoretical framework is the blueprint that can hold or scaffold a study’s theory. Conceptual frameworks are based on concepts from various theories and findings which help to guide the research. 6 It is the researcher’s understanding of how different variables are connected in the study, for example, the literature review and research question. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks connect the researcher to existing knowledge and these are used in a study to help to explain and understand what is being investigated. A framework is the design or map for a study. When you are appraising a qualitative paper, you should be able to see how the framework helped with (1) providing a rationale and (2) the development of research questions or statements. 7 You should be able to identify how the framework, research question, purpose and literature review all complement each other.

There remains an ongoing debate in relation to what an appropriate sample size should be for a qualitative study. We hold the view that qualitative research does not seek to power and a sample size can be as small as one (eg, a single case study) or any number above one (a grounded theory study) providing that it is appropriate and answers the research problem. Shorten and Moorley 8 explain that three main types of sampling exist in qualitative research: (1) convenience (2) judgement or (3) theoretical. In the paper , the sample size should be stated and a rationale for how it was decided should be clear.

Methodology

Qualitative research encompasses a variety of methods and designs. Based on the chosen method or design, the findings may be reported in a variety of different formats. Table 3 provides the main qualitative approaches used in nursing with a short description.

Different qualitative approaches

The authors should make it clear why they are using a qualitative methodology and the chosen theoretical approach or framework. The paper should provide details of participant inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as recruitment sites where the sample was drawn from, for example, urban, rural, hospital inpatient or community. Methods of data collection should be identified and be appropriate for the research statement/question.

Data collection

Overall there should be a clear trail of data collection. The paper should explain when and how the study was advertised, participants were recruited and consented. it should also state when and where the data collection took place. Data collection methods include interviews, this can be structured or unstructured and in depth one to one or group. 9 Group interviews are often referred to as focus group interviews these are often voice recorded and transcribed verbatim. It should be clear if these were conducted face to face, telephone or any other type of media used. Table 3 includes some data collection methods. Other collection methods not included in table 3 examples are observation, diaries, video recording, photographs, documents or objects (artefacts). The schedule of questions for interview or the protocol for non-interview data collection should be provided, available or discussed in the paper. Some authors may use the term ‘recruitment ended once data saturation was reached’. This simply mean that the researchers were not gaining any new information at subsequent interviews, so they stopped data collection.

The data collection section should include details of the ethical approval gained to carry out the study. For example, the strategies used to gain participants’ consent to take part in the study. The authors should make clear if any ethical issues arose and how these were resolved or managed.

The approach to data analysis (see ref  10 ) needs to be clearly articulated, for example, was there more than one person responsible for analysing the data? How were any discrepancies in findings resolved? An audit trail of how the data were analysed including its management should be documented. If member checking was used this should also be reported. This level of transparency contributes to the trustworthiness and credibility of qualitative research. Some researchers provide a diagram of how they approached data analysis to demonstrate the rigour applied ( figure 1 ).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Example of data analysis diagram.

Validity and rigour

The study’s validity is reliant on the statement of the question/problem, theoretical/conceptual framework, design, method, sample and data analysis. When critiquing qualitative research, these elements will help you to determine the study’s reliability. Noble and Smith 11 explain that validity is the integrity of data methods applied and that findings should accurately reflect the data. Rigour should acknowledge the researcher’s role and involvement as well as any biases. Essentially it should focus on truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. 11 The authors should discuss if they used triangulation (see table 2 ) to develop the best possible understanding of the phenomena.

Themes and interpretations and implications for practice

In qualitative research no hypothesis is tested, therefore, there is no specific result. Instead, qualitative findings are often reported in themes based on the data analysed. The findings should be clearly linked to, and reflect, the data. This contributes to the soundness of the research. 11 The researchers should make it clear how they arrived at the interpretations of the findings. The theoretical or conceptual framework used should be discussed aiding the rigour of the study. The implications of the findings need to be made clear and where appropriate their applicability or transferability should be identified. 12

Discussions, recommendations and conclusions

The discussion should relate to the research findings as the authors seek to make connections with the literature reviewed earlier in the paper to contextualise their work. A strong discussion will connect the research aims and objectives to the findings and will be supported with literature if possible. A paper that seeks to influence nursing practice will have a recommendations section for clinical practice and research. A good conclusion will focus on the findings and discussion of the phenomena investigated.

Qualitative research has much to offer nursing and healthcare, in terms of understanding patients’ experience of illness, treatment and recovery, it can also help to understand better areas of healthcare practice. However, it must be done with rigour and this paper provides some guidance for appraising such research. To help you critique a qualitative research paper some guidance is provided in table 4 .

Some guidance for critiquing qualitative research

• ↵ Nursing and Midwifery Council . The code: Standard of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives . 2015 https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf ( accessed 21 Aug 18 ).
• Barrett D ,
• Cathala X ,
• Shorten A ,

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

84k Accesses

28 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

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), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 12:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

• Teesside University Student & Library Services
• Learning Hub Group

Critical Appraisal for Health Students

• Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
• Critical Appraisal: Help
• Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper
• Useful resources

Appraisal of a Qualitative paper : Top tips

• Introduction

Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper

This guide aimed at health students, provides basic level support for appraising qualitative research papers. It's designed for students who have already attended lectures on critical appraisal. One framework  for appraising qualitative research (based on 4 aspects of trustworthiness) is  provided and there is an opportunity to practise the technique on a sample article.

Support Materials

• Framework for reading qualitative papers
• Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper PowerPoint

To practise following this framework for critically appraising a qualitative article, please look at the following article:

Schellekens, M.P.J.  et al  (2016) 'A qualitative study on mindfulness-based stress reduction for breast cancer patients: how women experience participating with fellow patients',  Support Care Cancer , 24(4), pp. 1813-1820.

Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper: practical example.

• Credibility
• Transferability
• Dependability
• Confirmability

How to use this practical example 

Using the framework, you can have a go at appraising a qualitative paper - we are going to look at the following article: 

Step 1.  take a quick look at the article, step 2.  click on the credibility tab above - there are questions to help you appraise the trustworthiness of the article, read the questions and look for the answers in the article. , step 3.   click on each question and our answers will appear., step 4.    repeat with the other aspects of trustworthiness: transferability, dependability and confirmability ., questioning the credibility:, who is the researcher what has been their experience how well do they know this research area, was the best method chosen what method did they use was there any justification was the method scrutinised by peers is it a recognisable method was there triangulation ( more than one method used), how was the data collected was data collected from the participants at more than one time point how long were the interviews were questions asked to the participants in different ways, is the research reporting what the participants actually said were the participants shown transcripts / notes of the interviews / observations to ‘check’ for accuracy are direct quotes used from a variety of participants, how would you rate the overall credibility, questioning the transferability, was a meaningful sample obtained how many people were included is the sample diverse how were they selected, are the demographics given, does the research cover diverse viewpoints do the results include negative cases was data saturation reached, what is the overall transferability can the research be transferred to other settings , questioning the dependability :, how transparent is the audit trail can you follow the research steps are the decisions made transparent is the whole process explained in enough detail did the researcher keep a field diary is there a clear limitations section, was there peer scrutiny of the researchwas the research plan shown to peers / colleagues for approval and/or feedback did two or more researchers independently judge data, how would you rate the overall dependability would the results be similar if the study was repeated how consistent are the data and findings, questioning the confirmability :, is the process of analysis described in detail is a method of analysis named or described is there sufficient detail, have any checks taken place was there cross-checking of themes was there a team of researchers, has the researcher reflected on possible bias is there a reflexive diary, giving a detailed log of thoughts, ideas and assumptions, how do you rate the overall confirmability has the researcher attempted to limit bias, questioning the overall trustworthiness :, overall how trustworthy is the research, further information.

See Useful resources  for links, books and LibGuides to help with Critical appraisal.

• << Previous: Critical Appraisal: Help
• Next: Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 4:47 PM
• URL: https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/critical_appraisal

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 25, Issue 1
• Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5660-8224 Veronika Williams ,
• Anne-Marie Boylan ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-1276 David Nunan
• Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter , Oxford , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Veronika Williams, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; veronika.williams{at}phc.ox.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111132

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

• qualitative research

Introduction

Qualitative evidence allows researchers to analyse human experience and provides useful exploratory insights into experiential matters and meaning, often explaining the ‘how’ and ‘why’. As we have argued previously 1 , qualitative research has an important place within evidence-based healthcare, contributing to among other things policy on patient safety, 2 prescribing, 3 4 and understanding chronic illness. 5 Equally, it offers additional insight into quantitative studies, explaining contextual factors surrounding a successful intervention or why an intervention might have ‘failed’ or ‘succeeded’ where effect sizes cannot. It is for these reasons that the MRC strongly recommends including qualitative evaluations when developing and evaluating complex interventions. 6

Critical appraisal of qualitative research

Is it necessary.

Although the importance of qualitative research to improve health services and care is now increasingly widely supported (discussed in paper 1), the role of appraising the quality of qualitative health research is still debated. 8 10 Despite a large body of literature focusing on appraisal and rigour, 9 11–15 often referred to as ‘trustworthiness’ 16 in qualitative research, there remains debate about how to —and even whether to—critically appraise qualitative research. 8–10 17–19 However, if we are to make a case for qualitative research as integral to evidence-based healthcare, then any argument to omit a crucial element of evidence-based practice is difficult to justify. That being said, simply applying the standards of rigour used to appraise studies based on the positivist paradigm (Positivism depends on quantifiable observations to test hypotheses and assumes that the researcher is independent of the study. Research situated within a positivist paradigm isbased purely on facts and consider the world to be external and objective and is concerned with validity, reliability and generalisability as measures of rigour.) would be misplaced given the different epistemological underpinnings of the two types of data.

Given its scope and its place within health research, the robust and systematic appraisal of qualitative research to assess its trustworthiness is as paramount to its implementation in clinical practice as any other type of research. It is important to appraise different qualitative studies in relation to the specific methodology used because the methodological approach is linked to the ‘outcome’ of the research (eg, theory development, phenomenological understandings and credibility of findings). Moreover, appraisal needs to go beyond merely describing the specific details of the methods used (eg, how data were collected and analysed), with additional focus needed on the overarching research design and its appropriateness in accordance with the study remit and objectives.

Poorly conducted qualitative research has been described as ‘worthless, becomes fiction and loses its utility’. 20 However, without a deep understanding of concepts of quality in qualitative research or at least an appropriate means to assess its quality, good qualitative research also risks being dismissed, particularly in the context of evidence-based healthcare where end users may not be well versed in this paradigm.

How is appraisal currently performed?

Appraising the quality of qualitative research is not a new concept—there are a number of published appraisal tools, frameworks and checklists in existence. 21–23  An important and often overlooked point is the confusion between tools designed for appraising methodological quality and reporting guidelines designed to assess the quality of methods reporting. An example is the Consolidate Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) 24 checklist, which was designed to provide standards for authors when reporting qualitative research but is often mistaken for a methods appraisal tool. 10

Broadly speaking there are two types of critical appraisal approaches for qualitative research: checklists and frameworks. Checklists have often been criticised for confusing quality in qualitative research with ‘technical fixes’ 21 25 , resulting in the erroneous prioritisation of particular aspects of methodological processes over others (eg, multiple coding and triangulation). It could be argued that a checklist approach adopts the positivist paradigm, where the focus is on objectively assessing ‘quality’ where the assumptions is that the researcher is independent of the research conducted. This may result in the application of quantitative understandings of bias in order to judge aspects of recruitment, sampling, data collection and analysis in qualitative research papers. One of the most widely used appraisal tools is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) 26 and along with the JBI QARI (Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Assessment Instrument) 27 presents examples which tend to mimic the quantitative approach to appraisal. The CASP qualitative tool follows that of other CASP appraisal tools for quantitative research designs developed in the 1990s. The similarities are therefore unsurprising given the status of qualitative research at that time.

Frameworks focus on the overarching concepts of quality in qualitative research, including transparency, reflexivity, dependability and transferability (see box 1 ). 11–13 15 16 20 28 However, unless the reader is familiar with these concepts—their meaning and impact, and how to interpret them—they will have difficulty applying them when critically appraising a paper.

The main issue concerning currently available checklist and framework appraisal methods is that they take a broad brush approach to ‘qualitative’ research as whole, with few, if any, sufficiently differentiating between the different methodological approaches (eg, Grounded Theory, Interpretative Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis) nor different methods of data collection (interviewing, focus groups and observations). In this sense, it is akin to taking the entire field of ‘quantitative’ study designs and applying a single method or tool for their quality appraisal. In the case of qualitative research, checklists, therefore, offer only a blunt and arguably ineffective tool and potentially promote an incomplete understanding of good ‘quality’ in qualitative research. Likewise, current framework methods do not take into account how concepts differ in their application across the variety of qualitative approaches and, like checklists, they also do not differentiate between different qualitative methodologies.

On the need for specific appraisal tools

Current approaches to the appraisal of the methodological rigour of the differing types of qualitative research converge towards checklists or frameworks. More importantly, the current tools do not explicitly acknowledge the prejudices that may be present in the different types of qualitative research.

Concepts of rigour or trustworthiness within qualitative research 31

Transferability: the extent to which the presented study allows readers to make connections between the study’s data and wider community settings, ie, transfer conceptual findings to other contexts.

Credibility: extent to which a research account is believable and appropriate, particularly in relation to the stories told by participants and the interpretations made by the researcher.

Reflexivity: refers to the researchers’ engagement of continuous examination and explanation of how they have influenced a research project from choosing a research question to sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data.

Transparency: making explicit the whole research process from sampling strategies, data collection to analysis. The rationale for decisions made is as important as the decisions themselves.

However, we often talk about these concepts in general terms, and it might be helpful to give some explicit examples of how the ‘technical processes’ affect these, for example, partialities related to:

Selection: recruiting participants via gatekeepers, such as healthcare professionals or clinicians, who may select them based on whether they believe them to be ‘good’ participants for interviews/focus groups.

Data collection: poor interview guide with closed questions which encourage yes/no answers and/leading questions.

Reflexivity and transparency: where researchers may focus their analysis on preconceived ideas rather than ground their analysis in the data and do not reflect on the impact of this in a transparent way.

The lack of tailored, method-specific appraisal tools has potentially contributed to the poor uptake and use of qualitative research for informing evidence-based decision making. To improve this situation, we propose the need for more robust quality appraisal tools that explicitly encompass both the core design aspects of all qualitative research (sampling/data collection/analysis) but also considered the specific partialities that can be presented with different methodological approaches. Such tools might draw on the strengths of current frameworks and checklists while providing users with sufficient understanding of concepts of rigour in relation to the different types of qualitative methods. We provide an outline of such tools in the third and final paper in this series.

As qualitative research becomes ever more embedded in health science research, and in order for that research to have better impact on healthcare decisions, we need to rethink critical appraisal and develop tools that allow differentiated evaluations of the myriad of qualitative methodological approaches rather than continuing to treat qualitative research as a single unified approach.

• Williams V ,
• Boylan AM ,
• Lingard L ,
• Orser B , et al
• Brawn R , et al
• Van Royen P ,
• Vermeire E , et al
• Barker M , et al
• McGannon KR
• Dixon-Woods M ,
• Agarwal S , et al
• Greenhalgh T ,
• Dennison L ,
• Morrison L ,
• Conway G , et al
• Barrett M ,
• Mayan M , et al
• Lockwood C ,
• Santiago-Delefosse M ,
• Bruchez C , et al
• Sainsbury P ,
• ↵ CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme). date unknown . http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/CASP.htm .
• ↵ The Joanna Briggs Institute . JBI QARI Critical appraisal checklist for interpretive & critical research . Adelaide : The Joanna Briggs Institute , 2014 .
• Stephens J ,

Contributors VW and DN: conceived the idea for this article. VW: wrote the first draft. AMB and DN: contributed to the final draft. All authors approve the submitted article.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Correction notice This article has been updated since its original publication to include a new reference (reference 1.)

Read the full text or download the PDF:

How to Critique Qualitative Research Articles

• Cheryl Forchuk
• Jacqueline Roberts

Articles in this journal are made available under a   Creative Commons Attribution License . Copyright has been assigned to the McGill Library and Archives.  Authors retain all moral rights in their original work. 

Information

• For Librarians
• Français (Canada)

Developed By

ISSN: 0844-5621

How to critique qualitative research articles

Affiliation.

• 1 Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Ontario.
• PMID: 10603806

The critique of qualitative research requires the use of different standards and criteria than are used for quantitative research. The great diversity of available qualitative methods can make evaluation or critical appraisal difficult for consumers of research who are less familiar with these methods. The current paper suggests that the following guidelines be used when a qualitative research paper is being examined: the topic must be appropriate for qualitative enquiry; the specific qualitative research method chosen must "fit"; the literature reviewed should be consistent with the method chosen; there should be ample description of informants or participants, context, and researcher; appropriate methods for information gathering and information analysis should be employed; the conclusions should be sound; and, the research must have some importance and relevance.

Publication types

• Data Collection / standards
• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Guidelines as Topic
• Nursing Methodology Research / methods*
• Nursing Methodology Research / standards*
• Peer Review, Research / methods*
• Research Design / standards*

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Communication, Culture and Critique
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

The positioning of bame, methodology, unpacking the discourse around bame, data availability.

• < Previous

“ We are no longer using the term BAME: ” a qualitative analysis exploring how activists position and mobilize naming of minority ethnic groups in Britain

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Sim Gill, “ We are no longer using the term BAME: ” a qualitative analysis exploring how activists position and mobilize naming of minority ethnic groups in Britain, Communication, Culture and Critique , Volume 17, Issue 1, March 2024, Pages 9–16, https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcae004

• Permissions Icon Permissions

In early 2021, the term BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) was commonly used by the government, public bodies, and the mass media to describe minority ethnic groups in Britain. However, this usage faced fierce criticism, particularly due to complex tensions surrounding racial and ethnic identity, solidarity, and history. This article critically evaluates these tensions and the meaning behind BAME through 10 interviews with activists working in the field of British race relations. My principle focus amid this debate revisits the foundations of the term BAME, which, I argue, is rooted in the rise and fall of Political Blackness. Additionally, I examine the broader strategic purposes of BAME as well as emphasize the importance of colorism within our discussions of racialization in Britain. Ultimately, this discussion seeks a richer account of our current climate around ethnic identification that considers both the potential and the limits of the term BAME.

Naming can operate on multiple levels, but in all instances, the term BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) has provided visibility to Black and Asian minority ethnic groups in the UK public sphere. As a form of discursive identification and structuring, the term has attracted little attention from academic scholars. However, it has been legitimated, sustained, and circulated by British society through its inclusion within government and public bodies, media, and activist groups since the early 2000s. More recently, the term has seen a proliferation of mentions. Indeed, according to Google Trends (2021), BAME hit a peak in search inquiries in 2020.

Amidst this growth followed a debate on whether BAME could be an appropriate term to categorize Black and Asian minority ethnic groups in the UK. A crucial component of this conversation concerned the essentializing of ethnic identity that (re)inscribed a Western (normatively White) form of authority for the classification of the other. This form of categorization contributes to an ontological exchange between cultures and as such the salience of this positioning has mutually implicated societal impacts on how individuals navigate themselves throughout British society. Critically here, the terminology used by the state versus descriptors chosen by individuals outside of these formal institutions is significant. Often seen as a point of contention, how communities may choose to refer to themselves as opposed to labels assigned by organizations presents us with important questions when engaging with questions around terminology and belonging.

It is demeaning to be categorized in relation to what we are not, rather than what we are: British Indian, British Caribbean, and so on. The BAME acronym also disguises huge differences in outcomes between ethnic groups. This reductionist idea forces us to think that the principal cause of all disparities must be majority versus minority discrimination. It also allows our institutions and businesses to point to the success of some BAME people in their organization and absolve themselves of responsibility for people from those minority groups that are doing less well. Like the UK’s White population, ethnic minority groups are far from monolithic in their attitudes towards British social norms and their inclusion in different walks of life. ( CRED, 2021 , pp. 32–33)

Fittingly, the paragraph concludes with a key argument often put forward by opponents of this racialized expression. Within this paragraph, we see how BAME fails to accurately capture authentic notions of identity that reflect the multiplicity of lived experiences in the UK. Put another way, this sentence is significant in drawing attention to the heterogeneity of the UK’s White population in relation to minority ethnic communities. Here the presumed normativity of Whiteness alongside conditions of class are emphasized to liberate individuals from engaging structurally with performances of British race and racism. By this I mean, that in implying the need to acknowledge and recognize specific ethnic identities rather than being lumped into broad categories, the paragraph above criticizes BAME for its erasure of complexities and diverse experiences within different ethnic communities. By supporting this sentiment with the fact that differences in outcomes may be affected by other factors (some of which have indeed led to diverse opportunities amongst the British White population), the report underscores the need to articulate individuality and unique experiences of ethnic minorities rather than the structural conditions that have historically privileged epistemological, normative Whiteness.

Moreover, while acknowledging and appreciating the mounting importance of naming and identity politics, we must remember that this is not the first time Britain has encountered such a debate. Rather one should note that race and racism are not static products but are reflections of a history and a politics. As such, it is correct that amid this discussion that we revisit the foundations of BAME, which is rooted in the rise and fall of Political Blackness. As such, it is not by happenstance that we find the focus of our contemporary conversation to have reignited similar criticisms that ultimately led to the decline in the use of the umbrella term Black. Certainly, at a moment when many British conservative MPs are willing the public towards a post-racial society, the use of identity politics here supports a global trend that views phrases like BAME as inert if not threatening.

Therefore, this article is organized into three main parts. The first section critically reviews existing literature on Positioning theory, Political Blackness, and Critical Race Theory (CRT). My focus is to underscore the historical considerations related to the terms Black and Political Blackness that draw parallels between these discussions and the emergence of the term BAME. The second section introduces the methodology used in this article, which focuses on interviewing activists. Activism plays a crucial role in social and political movements and serves as an important avenue for political participation in representative democracies ( Dahl, 1989 ). This is important because activists generate theory largely outside of academic circles, which directly impacts our understanding of the epistemology of race and racism in Britain. Thus, by interviewing activists, this article aims to understand how they position themselves and engage with the discursive category of BAME, as well as what this construction signifies for the naming of minority ethnic groups in Britain.

The final section discusses the key findings derived from the interviews. Here, I outline the need for greater consideration of colorism in order to fully understand the process and structures of racialization in Britain. I then note how the overarching purpose of BAME is to highlight structural failings and promote accountability rather than focusing solely on the personal identity of ethnic groups. More directly, I conclude by arguing that future theorizing should consider constructing race and racism in the plural, recognizing that the naming of minority ethnic groups should be explained alongside the structures of normative Whiteness. Ultimately this discussion seeks out a deeper understanding of our current climate around identity and race that considers both the potential and the limits of naming.

At its core, the term BAME has often provided visibility to ethnic minority groups in British society. As a means to position this group within a broader social and ideological hegemony, BAME acts as a signifying practice that attests to structures of power, discourse, and linguistics. The significance of this discursive frame can also be discussed through positioning theory, which within the social sciences was a concept first prominently introduced by Holloway (1984) in her feminist critique of gender differentiation in discourses. With particular attention to the embodiments of masculine and feminine attributes, a significant point Holloway’s work emphasizes is how subject positions are produced within discourses. In this context, a subject position refers to the momentary clusters of rights and duties that embody a particular way of thinking, acting, and speaking.

Building on this foundation, Harré’s ( Harré & Langehove,1999 ; Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 ) work helped shape positioning theory more formally. Indeed, a central idea of interest for Harré ( Harré’s & Langehove, 1999 ; Harré & Moghaddam, 2003 ) outlines positioning as a discursive practice, whereby individuals exchange meaning concerning their social world by tactically positioning themselves throughout a dialogue. As such, individuals emerge from the process of social interaction, not as a fixed product, but as active agents whose subjectivity is constantly being negotiated: being made and remade within discursive practices that the subject engages. Positioning is, therefore, a dynamic construction as well as an essential feature of social interaction. This understanding can be extended to frame our understanding of culture or to put it more concisely, practices of culture: whereby we may argue that individuals, such as those captured by BAME, do not harness a fixed set of monolithic values/essences but instead are subject to dynamic construction of positions that shape the way in which their practices of culture can be embodied. These subject positions provide agency and meaning to individuals as well as allow us to note signifiers of acceptance, othering, and even stigmatization. Reflecting some criticisms noted by the CRED report, positioning theory helps delineate how positions such as BAME can be taken for granted as if they were just the natural order.

These dynamic theoretical concepts provide a vocabulary to help navigate our understanding of the world and, as such, are widely applied across various other academic disciplines, especially within discussions of identity and power. Subsequently, for my research, positioning theory is a primary source of inspiration and will be drawn upon throughout this article.

A brief history of Political Blackness

Black Power in its American usage has often dominated public perception, from its association with the early 1850s Black leader Frederick Douglass to its more prominent use by activists and scholars Carmichael and Hamilton (1967) . However, while the mobilization of Black Power in Britain has drawn inspiration from this established movement, Political Blackness in Britain has often contrasted with that of its American counterpart. Certainly, despite being overlooked in mainstream culture, there is an extensive and rich scholarship covering Political Blackness in Britain ( Ambikaipaker, 2018 ; Gilroy, 1987 ; Shukra, 1998 ).

Starting with the 1950s, due to changing economic conditions, post-war Britain saw its internal boundaries substantially altered. As a result, the minority ethnic population increased rapidly in size, with many workers and their families migrating from outside of Europe—predominantly from countries with a history of colonialism, including Jamaica, Barbados, India, and Pakistan ( Winant, 2001 ). These new immigrants of Commonwealth origin, of both West African and South Asian descent, were to be grouped as Black by White Britons, irrespective of other forms of categorization and distinction.

Alternatively, and quite rationally, many of these Commonwealth migrants did not position themselves as a single entity of Black people. They saw their differences. However, by the late 1960s, economic and social discrimination against Black communities reached a significant point of tension. Indeed, Virdee (2014) exemplifies the effects of this division by drawing attention to the creation of informal color bars in workplaces and racial discrimination in areas such as housing and policing during this period. This discrimination was often accompanied by overt instances of physical violence in the name of “nigger hunting” or “Paki bashing.” 1 Certainly, in direct contrast to historically established idioms of anti-Black hate speech in the US, in Britain, this rhetoric included South Asians. Tying all this together, the spectacle of anti-Black hostility became acutely confined under the banner of the neofascist National Front ( Solomos, 1989 ). In short, these experiences forced many activists to re-evaluate how they positioned their struggles and identities ( Shukra, 1998 ). Instead, the interaction between racism experienced by the new Commonwealth immigrants and the rise of Black Power in the US inspired a distinct culture of Black solidarity in Britain.

In other words, adopting a Black identity did not denote ascribing to a descriptive category or cultural association between Asian, African, and Caribbean communities. On the contrary, as Hall (1991 , 1997 ) echoes, the strategic consequences of this position could be spelled out as a function for anti-racism and a form of solidarity politics offering many instrumental benefits, including resource mobilization, resilience-building against ordinary examples of normative Whiteness, and what Shilliam has called a diasporically educated and committed “global infrastructure of anti-colonial connectivity” ( 2015 , p. 3). Ultimately, then, as a theoretical weapon, Political Blackness was a form of racial analysis that tried to understand, challenge, and present strength among multiple forms of racism that were nonetheless interlocked in the politics of the state and society.

Multiculturalism, BAME & the rise of what about me

Political Blackness articulated a specific social vision that was broadly agreed upon within British scholarship of the 1950s and 1960s. However, much of this vision was lost in scholarship and activism that emerged during the late 1980s. As Gilroy (1987 , p. 36) laments, this period progressed several significant epistemological shifts that moved away from “political definitions of Black based on the possibility of Afro-Asian unity and towards more restricted alternative formulations, which ultimately confined the concept of Blackness to people of African descent.” In Ambalavaner Sivananda’s words, “Black lost its political culture and became a cultural color” (1988, cited in Shukra, 1998 , p. 62).

This particular discourse revolved around the politics of recognition and was notably championed by scholar Modood (1994 , 1999 ). Principally, Modood argued that the term Black could not appropriately or sufficiently serve Asian communities because it was rooted in Pan-Africanist/Black power influence, which he considered as an acceptance by Asians of an Afro-political leadership. Broadly speaking, these criticisms extended into debates around gender and (briefly) colorism as well as discussions around the ontological experience of non-Whiteness. Each component of this debate against the umbrella term Black provides an almost identical reflection of contemporary discourse concerning BAME. However, given the length of this article, and for succinctness, I will focus my attention on what primarily drives much of these historical discussions: chiefly, the increased fissionability of multiculturalism.

As scholars Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner (cited in Goldberg, 1994 , p.107) write, the promise ushered by multiculturalism was to make “political cultures open and responsible,” but its development has instead helped to spotlight a politics of difference. Within this politics of difference, the success of multiculturalism predicates identity and perceptions of identity as commodities that grant or deny resources. These resources include self-worth, visibility, and better (more targeted) educational and employment opportunities. This discourse moves us away from transforming society towards a neoliberal discourse that Ambikaipaker describes as “getting a bigger portion for ourselves” (2018, p. 183). In short, this discourse encouraged debates centered on emerging identity politics and a cultural preoccupation with individual selfhood, intricately intertwined with the social and economic conditions of capital, prompting a recognition of calls for “ What about me ?” Consequently, this attractive neoliberal framing of multiculturalism inevitably contributed to abandoning Black, and a shift towards the term BME or “Black and Minority Ethnic” which first made its appearance in 1987. Indeed, in 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) decided to cease its recommendation that the ethnic monitoring category Black encompass Asians. This directly influenced the Population Census in 1991, where Britons were first presented with a question on ethnicity, which included four main categories: White, Black, Asian, and any other race or ethnic group. The eventual transition from BME to BAME followed shortly after in the early 2000s.

BAME and the current moment

While there is an abundance of scholarly work utilizing BAME, it is noteworthy that there is a lack of research specifically examining how these texts employ the terminology and its significance in discourses that surround British race relations. It has most often been used by academics to either align their research with government policy or because the label is largely recognized by the target audience of the publishing journal (see also, Howells et al., 2018 ). Equally, some scholars, such as Opara et al. (2020) , choose to adopt BAME due to personal preferences over substitute umbrella terms, including visible minorities or people of color. Quite simply, this lack of engagement with the term BAME has also meant there is a lack of clarity on how the wider British public responds to such positioning. Altogether, these literature gaps make it difficult to understand the wider socio-political debate around naming minority ethnic groups, as well as the political and economic motivations behind CRED’s recommendation. This is particularly noteworthy when we consider the different dimensions of naming and dialectic tensions between how individual communities, grassroots activists, and/or media and formal governmental institutions utilize racial terminology.

Nevertheless, the symmetry between the discourse concerning Political Blackness and BAME suggests that the wider issues of naming are not problems that can just disappear. Rather unsettling critiques of naming require thorough engagement with those whose lives are both produced and reduced by such a terminology. With the hope, then, to not repeat our past debates under slightly different names, this present research seeks to outline what BAME means for British activists as a means to build forward a new path for future literature concerning racial and ethnic identities in Britain.

The key question addressed by this article seeks to understand how activists position and work with the discursive category of BAME and what the construction of this discursive category signifies for the naming of minority ethnic groups in Britain. Drawing from Robinson’s (2014) comprehensive guide on sampling in qualitative research, I established criteria for my interviewee selection based on my research question’s focus, which was inclusive of individuals over 18 residing in England and affiliated with activist organizations. 2

I employed LinkedIn advertisements for participant recruitment in my study, aligning with established practices in research ( Bhutta, 2012 ; Ritchie et al., 2014 ). Certainly, in leveraging the flexibility offered through social media, I was able to share my research materials more widely for over a two-month period. These materials explicitly communicated my affiliation with the BAME community and articulated the research’s objective: to explore individuals’ perceptions of the term “BAME,” its historical significance, and their aspirations of naming ethnic minority groups in the British context. Initially, eight individuals responded to the calls, and the remaining participants were recruited through snowball sampling. The choice to interview only 10 activists stemmed from constraints in time, budget, and resources. Additionally, the decision aimed to strike a balance by prioritizing depth over breadth, allowing for a detailed exploration of participants’ experiences, perceptions, and motivations. The interviewing lengths varied from 48 minutes to 80 minutes, with interview details shown in Table 1 .

Interviewee information and interview details

Coding framework, reflexivity & analysis

My intention for analysis is not to present a homogenous or authentic voice for activists because I maintain that no such voice exists. However, in accordance with Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) , thematic analysis unearths themes prominent in interviewees’ accounts that capture their experiences and perceptions of the social world. The recognition of such themes distinguished my categories for analysis.

In total, I produced 11 interpretive codes: defining BAME, accountability, alternatives to BAME, the year 2020, experiences of racism, gender, religion, class, what type of society do we want to live in, present future classification, and acceptance. While this coding process involved several iterations, the stages of thematic analysis enabled recurrent and distinctive features of interviewees’ accounts to be understood and compared. These features highlighted what interviewees had in common as well as where they diverged and meaningfully contributed to developing three overarching themes, which will be presented in the next section of this article.

Pausing briefly, I would like to draw attention to the fact that qualitative researchers have different philosophical approaches to understanding how meaning is created. Traditionally, interviews have been seen as one-sided, with the interviewer gathering information from the interviewee who is seen as the unilateral source of facts ( Holstein & Gubrium, 1995 ). However, this view oversimplifies the interview process as a mere source of knowledge. Many researchers, especially feminists, criticize the idea of value-free and objective interviewing ( Ellis & Berger, 2003 ). They argue that researchers should recognize their personal, political, and professional biases that influence the meaning-making process. Thus, amongst these different epistemological contentions, I follow a philosophical position broadly in line with contextualism ( King et al., 2019 ). I have chosen this approach due to the emphasis placed on the role of reflexivity. The recognition of my position is crucial to underscore how my background may influence responses elicited by my interviewees. This background may also affect how I interpret responses. Moreover, my positionality must also be considered in parallel with the positions of the activists I interview. As Blee (2013) notes in her paper “Interviewing Activists,” it is almost inevitable that researchers will have some opinion about the value or assessment of political work in which activist interviewees are implicated. As such, these political and moral judgments needed to be considered within the interviewing process as well as in the development of my codes and discussion. This was particularly noticeable when, for instance, in two of my interviews, the interviewees positioned me within their responses, stating: “You know how it is as an Indian.” To some degree, my background as a British Indian implicates me as an insider in the community being researched ( Adler & Adler, 1987 ). The recognition of this position underscores how identity may influence responses elicited by interviewees. In order to omit any judgment in my responses, so my interviewees could express their thoughts clearly without damaging the rapport or flow of the conversation, I relied on reflexivity. Specifically, by keeping a research journal I recorded the dates and times of interviews, a summary of the discussion and my reflections on certain responses, as well as brief notes of what was occurring socially and politically. This level of detail was crucial given the liveliness of public debate on my research topic.

Furthermore, discussions on race and belonging produce different outcomes and illustrate how racism is not felt equally, nor is it recognized uniformly by all those who experience it. Instead, these discourses communicate the sociality of racialization as a process. Therefore employing reflexivity within all stages of the methodological process ensures that such nuances are captured and showcases the interview as a methodological space where subject positions are constantly being negotiated.

What BAME actually means

I began each interview by discussing the activists’ identities, which extended to the affiliations of the organizations they represented, and how they defined the term BAME. In accordance with GOV.UK (2018), BAME provides cover to Black and Asian minority ethnic groups in Britain and excludes Mixed, Other, and White ethnic minority groups. However, among my interviewees, there was confusion and disagreement regarding its definition. Some saw BAME as a term for non-White individuals, while others considered it as an umbrella term for all minority ethnic backgrounds in Britain. The only point of agreement was the inclusion of individuals from mixed backgrounds.

I am a woman of color, but I also benefit from light-skinned privilege, and I'm also White assumed a lot (…) I used White assumed because it’s quite complex for people to ascribe you as White passing when you don't feel in your heart that you are. (P8)

Like I'm white, my dad and brother aren’t. We’re a family that came out in different shades (…) and actually I could walk around and unless they knew who my brother and dad were, and what my heritage was, I would get away with it. I could pass (…) (P10)

P10’s notion of passing draws on the privileges of colorism. At its simplest, colorism involves a prejudiced preference for lighter skin tones. It is a form of bias that has created a global market for skin-lightening, currently valued at US$8bn with projections for growth of US$13.7bn by 2025 ( CNN, 2022 ). This evaluation is predicated on the belief that light skin is awarded larger material wealth, class, and prospects of matrimony in comparison to those with darker shades. In some ways, this discourse corresponds with French Sociologist Bourdieu’s (1997) notion of symbolic capital, whereby the aesthetics of the body informs a practice of commoditization that is associated with value as well as perceived and constructed identity. If we develop this further, we may see colorism as a manifestation of racism and racialization that complicates our relationship with BAME. Therefore, how we position BAME and who it captures becomes a somewhat different story when discussing color.

Accountability, but for whom?

To speak of a BAME community within the nation state is to speak metaphorically. Somewhat inevitably, most individuals of a BAME background are strangers to one another. But even if we can't agree on what or who BAME stands for, many people will share a rough idea of what is distinctive about BAME from the national (normatively White) character. This point proved particularly salient when uncovering the value of BAME.

Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly highlights the popularity and perception of BAME, as evidenced by its search trends on Google. During this period, we also see the British Government publicly stating that being from a BAME background was a risk factor for COVID-19 ( BBC News, 2020 ). Despite numerous reports circulating within the British academic and public sphere that substantiate findings of institutional racism, this counterviewpoint persists. In fact, in reference to these reports, a rather topical example was raised by P5, who is an advocate of anti-racism within education. Reciting an investigative story first broken by the British newspaper The Guardian , P5 grievously details how in 1968, the Queen’s advisers, including her chief financial manager, had informed civil servants that it was not a part of their correct practice to appoint “colored immigrants” to clerical roles within the royal household: “That was based not on merit, that was based on the color of your skin” (P5).

As discussed, CRT scholars argue racism is so deeply ingrained in society that its existence is often denied, unless it manifests in extreme acts ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ). This narrow definition of racism overlooks the pervasive effects of structural and institutional racism. An example of such consequences is highlighted by P5, whose father faced challenges in having his educational qualifications recognized in the UK when he immigrated in the late 1960s. This kind of racism not only affects self-esteem and self-worth but also alters career paths, as P5 continues: “My dad ended up working in the factories for 30 years, never being a teacher. We have similar issues now. So, people coming from various countries, their qualifications are not recognized. Now, they’re not on merit, these are political decisions.” Such findings are not uncommon even now ( Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2022 ).

Similarly reflecting on this, P1, a former advocate at an anti-racist think tank and current worker in diversity and inclusion in higher education, emphasizes the disparities in economic activity, social networks, unemployment rates, wage rates, and healthcare benefits between White individuals and minority ethnic individuals: “And there’s evidence to suggest that, if you’re from a minority ethnic minority group, sometimes, like you know, you won't be recruited as much, you won't be shortlisted and things like that” (P1).

“Adam gets called to interview three times more than Mohammed and gets asked by recruitment agencies twice as much. All over one simple thing, the name Adam” (P9) “If you’re a white person whose surname is Watson, you’re applying for a job and thinking, is it good enough, did I get my grammar correct, are they hiring, do they have enough spaces? You’re not thinking, oh, are they even going to look at it because my name is Mohammad!” (P6)

You know the murder of George Floyd (…) that was part of a continuum of the racism and the brutality against the Black community. (P9) It’s not BAME, we’re talking about Black people. (P6)

However, a crucial difference between discourses of the 1980s and our present moment is the activist origins that distinguish Black and BAME. Similar to the inception of Political Blackness, it’s undeniable that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement holds significant power. Its conceptual positioning has proven to be valuable in theoretical, political, and ideological terms. As a movement, it carries a deeply grassroots-led political impetus that strengthens the call for racial justice ( Lowery, 2016 ). As activists P7 and P8, who focus on educational research and decolonization in higher education, respectively, point out, BAME is widely seen as a state-sanctioned label: Indeed, in other words, P8 notes “The term BAME, was never designed to have that kind of political force. The term BAME is a monitoring term (…) it was a state term.”

Relatedly, P8 details the internal politics of activism and the terms they use depending on the audience: “Now I don't view people of color as being a particular political term, but there are a lot of people who do view it that way. And so, if I'm in a certain room I might use BAME on purpose to try and endear that person to me so that they won't think of me as a radical in the same way.” Consequently, the association of BAME with the state influences my interviewees’ day-to-day activism, leading many to express great apathy towards it. The gap between grassroots community activism and institutional grassroots activism, then, is evidenced by the rejection of BAME as an identity. As P1 colorfully asserts, “I’ve never heard anyone run around saying I’m BAME, I’m BAME, I’m BAME”—the identity of BAME is not conceived at the individual level.

While the significance of BAME diminishes when speaking of the practicalities of day-to-day activism, it is essential to note that all but three of my interviewees expressed a reluctance to dispense with the term altogether. Many interviewees also pointed out that relying solely on individual ethnic groups would create similar problems by obscuring some details and emphasizing others, with P7 noting that “if you only look to individual ethnic groups, you'd also lose something of the bigger picture of racialization in our society.”

Crucially, the point is not to take rigid sides between individual ethnic identities and umbrella terms. Instead, we need to understand where terms such as BAME are seen as a valuable tool for connecting and providing accountability for wider racialized institutional and structural failures.

What type of society do we want to live in?

From Politically Black to BAME, the evolution of umbrella terms reveals how individuals are positioned and repositioned by local circumstances, changing migration patterns, new experiences of racism, generational shifts, and unstable geopolitical conditions. Thus, to articulate the future trajectory of naming ethnic minorities in Britain, I concluded all my interviews by asking my interviewees to describe their hopes for our future society. The analysis of the responses proved engaging and thought-provoking from the outset. The narratives were a blend of humor, moments of sadness, and occasional contradictions. But overall, the accounts generated tended to be predominantly optimistic.

Specifically, this question prompted answers that naturally gravitated towards two main theoretical and conceptual frames: the first of which continued a discourse on a post-racial Britain. P3 articulates that amongst this discourse, he hopes that “knowledge of the different strands of diversity are commonplace, so we don't need an organization like ours to have to explain to people what it means to be a Black person or an Asian person in the community.” Sensing the sadness underlying this sentiment, these accounts insisted on a layering of traditional multicultural understanding of differences, whereby diversity is celebrated and recognized; but the overall category of race remains benign, in that it does not limit an individual’s access to opportunities or project feelings of othering and extreme violence.

I think at the moment, a lot of White people, and some people of color as well, are very keen on the idea of a diverse and inclusive society. I'm interested in equity, justice, decolonization, and reparations (…) a world where the truth about our history is taught in schools and universities. And there’s a free exchange of ideas and forms of knowledge production between different countries across the world. (P8)

As P8 continues, “deconstructing whiteness and deconstructing how Western viewpoints and Western structures, etc., have governed the way that we learn, the way that people are perceived, the way that we’re kind of rewarded for things or even criticized for others.” Rather, against our current normative view of history, we divide our complex world into such simple dichotomies of good and bad, that privilege those who have had certain affordances, such as their race or Whiteness. It is within such a simple understanding that we may uncover the spatial and time-bound layers of meaning behind history that contribute to our present understanding of progress, representation, and world-making. Under this narrative, it is fundamental that we bridge the gaps between finding the meaning of memory and doing/living memory. In short, and quite crucially, despite these distinctive responses, there was an overwhelming agreement, that in any of these futures, there would remain some form of umbrella term for minority ethnic groups at a grassroots and institutional level.

At its simplest, then, umbrella terms can offer a sense of familiarity, acceptance, and shared heritage that many, quite reasonably, would be unwilling to dispose of. However, what this ideal umbrella term would look like and how it would operate and interact with systems of capitalism and normative Whiteness remained unimagined. Perhaps, so much so, to suggest that the ideal terminology does not matter as much as grasping the negotiated and often contested conditions that reproduce race and racism in Britain.

The motivation for this research stemmed from the very sobering conclusions from the COVID-19 pandemic; indeed, the year 2021 brought about a very rare instance where both BAME and BAME communities have been thrust into the spotlight of our public sphere. Consequently, unpacking the effects of this discourse has been at the heart of this article.

Yet equally this is not the first time we have encountered this debate, with a historical consideration towards the term Black and Political Blackness, we can see the symmetry between the two discussions that ultimately led us to BAME. Quite notably, then my findings suggest the need for greater attention and openness toward discussing the discourse of colorism to fully understand British race and race relations. Equally, my interviewees emphasized that while the political impetus of BAME may be weaker than other terms like BLM, the primary value of BAME lies in its ability to draw attention to the unconscious or subconscious systemic disparities that exist within our society. Indeed, the purpose of BAME positions structural failings against the larger national picture: thus, accountability, not personal identity, is its raison d'être .

Taken together, the narrating of what we call ourselves now, or what umbrella term we choose to call ourselves next, is not the end but only a means to an end. Accordingly, future theorizing should emphasize the need to construct race and racism in the plural, recognizing that any future naming of minority ethnic groups must be explained alongside structures of Whiteness. Discussing terms like BAME under this more complex, structural lens would move us away from a zero-sum, binary approach. This would also underscore the social construction of naming, with the hope that we address new frameworks for looking at systemic issues that lay underneath terms such as BAME, rather than reissue them under slightly different names. Ultimately, this article attempts to contribute to this hope.

Funding support for this article was provided by the This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available.

Conflict of interest : None declared.

I consciously use the terms “nigger hunting” and “Paki bashing” in their entirety to appropriately reflect the evolution of social attitudes towards race. In an effort to support critical thinking, our language and how it has (and is) evoked to communicate racism is crucial to understand and reflect on if we are to overcome practices that maintain racism.

While the definition of who is an activist and what counts as activism is far-reaching and not universally agreed upon in contemporary social science debates, I have included individuals from think-tanks, charities, networks, and support groups within my sampling frame.

Adler P. , Adler P. ( 1987 ). The past and the future of ethnography . Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 16 ( 1 ), 4 – 24 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241687161001

Google Scholar

Ambikaipaker M. ( 2018 ). Political Blackness in multiracial Britain . University of Pennsylvania Press .

Google Preview

BBC News ( 2020 , June 02). Coronavirus: Risk of death is higher for ethnic minorities. Retrieved 02 10, 2021, from BBC News . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52889106 .

BBC ( 2017 ). Inside out. BBC . https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5wFFrcMD0chDjSZVDQPVgqh/inside-out

Bhutta, C. B. ( 2012 ). Not by the Book: Facebook as a Sampling Frame . Sociological Methods & Research , 41 ( 1 ), 57 – 88 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124112440795

Blee K. M. ( 2013 ). Interviewing activists . The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements , 1 ( 3 ), 1 – 4 . https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm111

Bourdieu P. ( 1997 ). The forms of capital. In Halsey A. H. (Ed.), Education: Culture, economy and society (pp. 241 – 258 ). Oxford University Press .

Bonilla-Silva E. ( 2003 ). Racism without Racists . Rowman & Littlefield .

Carmichael S. , Hamilton C. V. ( 1967 ). Black Power: The politics of liberation . Random House .

Commission for Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) . ( 2021 , March 31). The report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities

CNN ( 2022 , December). Skin whitening: the reasons, the colorism survey. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/12/world/skin-whitening-reasons-colorism survey-as-equals-intl-cmd/

Dahl R. A. ( 1989 ). Democracy and its critics . Yale University Press .

Ellis C. , Berger L. ( 2003 ). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In In Gubrium J. F. (Ed.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 156 – 183 ). SAGE Publications .

Fereday J. , Muir-Cochrane E. ( 2006 ). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 5 ( 1 ), 80 – 92 . https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

Gilroy P. ( 1987 ). There ain't no Black in the Union Jack . Unwin Hyman Ltd .

Goldberg D. T. ( 1994 ). Multiculturalism: A critical reader . Basil Blackwell Ltd .

Gray H. ( 2019 ). Race after race. In Mukherjee R. , Banet-Weiser S. , Gray H. (Eds.), Post racism (pp. 23 – 37 ). Duke University Press .

Hall S. ( 1991 ). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In King A. D. (Ed.), Culture, globalisation and the world system (pp. 41 – 69 ). Macmillan .

Hall S. ( 1997 ). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices . Sage Publications .

Harré R. , Langenhove L. V. ( 1999 ). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of international action . Blackwell Publishers .

Harré R. , Moghaddam F. ( 2003 ). The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political and cultural contexts . Praeger Publishers .

Holloway W. ( 1984 ). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In Henriques W. H. J. (Ed.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (pp. 227 – 264 ). Taylor & Francis .

Howells K. , Bower P. , Hassell K. ( 2018 ). Exploring the career choices of White and Black, Asian and minority ethnic women pharmacists: A qualitative study . The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice , 26 ( 6 ), 507 – 514 . doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12424

Holstein J. , Gubrium J. ( 1995 ). The active interview . Sage Publications .

Institute for Fiscal Studies ( 2022 ). Race and ethnicity: IFS Deaton review of inequalities. https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Race-and-ethnicity-IFS-Deaton-Review-of-Inequalities.pdf

King N. , Horrocks C. , Brooks J. ( 2019 ). Interviews in qualitative research . SAGE Publications .

Lowery W. ( 2016 ). They can't kill us all: Ferguson, Baltimore, and a new era in America’s racial justice movement . Penguin Books Limited .

Modood T. ( 1994 ). Political Blackness and British Asians . Sociology , 28 ( 4 ), 859 – 876 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038594028004004

Modood T. ( 1999 ). The rise and fall of an anti-racism: From Political Blackness to ethnic pluralism . In Andrews G. , Cockett R. , Hooper A. , Williams M. (Eds.), New Left, New Right and Beyond . Palgrave Macmillan .

Opara V. , Sealy R. , Ryan M. K. ( 2020 ). The workplace experiences of BAME professional women: Understanding experiences at the intersection . Gender, Work & Organization , 27 ( 6 ), 1192 – 1213 . https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12456

Parameswaran R. ( 2019 ). Jamming the color line. In Mukherjee R. , Banet-Weiser S. , Gray H. (Eds.), Racism Postrace (pp. 57 – 72 ). Duke University Press .

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. ( 2014 ). Qualitative Research Practice . SAGE Publications .

Robinson O. ( 2014 ). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 11 ( 1 ), 25 – 41 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543

Shilliam R. ( 2015 ). The Black Pacific: Anti-colonial struggles and oceanic connections . Bloomsbury Publishing .

Shukra K. ( 1998 ). The changing pattern of Black politics in Britain . Pluto Press .

Sivanandan A. ( 2008 ). Race and resistance: the IRR story . Race & Class , 50 ( 2 ), 1 – 30 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396808096391

Solomos J. ( 1989 ). Race and racism in Britain . Palgrave Macmillan .

Stefancic J. , Delgado R. ( 1995 ). Critical Race Theory: An introduction . New York University Press .

Virdee S. ( 2014 ). Racism, class and the racialized outsider . Red Globe Press .

Wild R. ( 2008 ). Black was the colour of our fight: Black power in Britain, 1955-1976 . University of Sheffield, Department of History .

Winant H. ( 2001 ). The world is a ghetto: Race and democracy since World War II . Basic Books .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1753-9137
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Review of Related Literature (RRL) in Qualitative Research

Ai generator.

1. Introduction: This review explores how teacher-student relationships affect student outcomes, based on qualitative research over the past decade.

2. Theoretical Framework : Grounded in Attachment Theory and Social Constructivism, this review examines the influence of teacher-student relationships on engagement, motivation, and achievement.

3. Review of Empirical Studies

Student Engagement

• Positive Relationships : Smith & Lee (2015) found that positive relationships increased engagement in 20 elementary classrooms via interviews and observations.
• Supportive Interactions : Johnson & Martinez (2016) reported that supportive teacher interactions fostered belonging and participation in high school students from focus group discussions.

Student Motivation

• Encouragement and Trust : Brown & Davis (2017) showed higher motivation with encouraging teachers using in-depth interviews with 50 middle school students.
• Personal Connections : Thompson & Garcia (2018) found improved motivation with personal teacher connections based on a high school case study.

Student Achievement

• Empathy and Understanding : Williams & Brown (2019) observed that empathetic teachers positively impacted achievement using narrative analysis.
• Individual Attention : Clark & Evans (2020) found better performance with individual attention from teachers in classroom observations and interviews.

4. Methodological Review : Qualitative methods included interviews, focus groups, case studies, and narrative analyses. These methods provided deep insights but were time-consuming and limited in generalizability.

5. Synthesis and Critique : The literature shows that strong teacher-student relationships enhance engagement, motivation, and achievement. However, qualitative findings are context-specific and may not be widely applicable. Mixed-method approaches could validate and extend these findings.

6. Conclusion : Qualitative research highlights the importance of teacher-student relationships. Future studies should combine qualitative and quantitative methods for a comprehensive understanding.

7. References

• Brown, A., & Davis, R. (2017). Encouragement and Trust in Teacher-Student Relationships . Journal of Educational Psychology, 29(4), 234-245.
• Clark, M., & Evans, D. (2020). Individual Attention and Academic Performance . Journal of Classroom Research, 35(1), 78-89.
• Johnson, L., & Martinez, S. (2016). Supportive Teacher Interactions and Student Participation . High School Journal, 20(3), 145-156.
• Smith, J., & Lee, K. (2015). Positive Teacher-Student Relationships in Elementary Education . Educational Studies, 27(2), 123-134.
• Thompson, M., & Garcia, L. (2018). Personal Connections in High School Education . Case Studies in Education, 15(1), 89-102.
• Williams, P., & Brown, H. (2019). Empathy in Teacher-Student Relationships . Narrative Inquiry in Education, 22(3), 301-312.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting