Reporting Qualitative Research

Overview

A reader cannot appraise qualitative research if crucial design decisions are invisible. Transparent reporting should allow the reader to understand what the researchers wanted to know, why the qualitative approach fit, who generated and interpreted the data, how participants or materials were selected, how analysis developed, what evidence supports the findings and how far the claims extend.

The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) provide a broad 21-item framework for qualitative studies.[1] The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) provide a 32-item checklist specifically focused on studies using interviews and focus groups.[2] JARS-Qual provides additional journal-article reporting standards across qualitative traditions.[3]

These are reporting standards, not scoring systems for methodological excellence. A completely reported weak study remains weak; incomplete reporting can also make a strong study impossible to evaluate.

Why this matters

Qualitative manuscripts are frequently weakened not because the topic is unimportant but because the research process is described in vague language:

“Purposive sampling was used until saturation. Interviews were thematically analysed. Triangulation and member checking ensured validity.”

This paragraph contains familiar methodological terms yet leaves nearly every important decision unknown. Who was eligible? What purposive strategy was used? What did saturation mean? Who interviewed participants? What thematic-analysis approach was used? What was triangulated? What did participants review?

Transparent reporting replaces labels with enough methodological explanation to make the study intelligible.

Reporting standards and their scope

SRQR

SRQR was developed as a synthesis of qualitative reporting recommendations and is designed for broad applicability across qualitative approaches.[1] It covers areas including title and abstract, problem formulation, purpose or question, qualitative approach and paradigm, researcher characteristics and reflexivity, context, sampling, ethical issues, data-collection methods, analytic procedures, trustworthiness, findings, interpretation and integration.

SRQR is useful as a general reporting map. It does not prescribe one qualitative methodology.

COREQ

COREQ focuses on studies using interviews and focus groups.[2] Its domains include research team and reflexivity, study design, and analysis/findings. It asks for details such as interviewer characteristics, participant knowledge of the interviewer, sampling, setting, presence of non-participants, recording, field notes, data saturation and quotation presentation.

COREQ should not be represented as a universal checklist for every form of qualitative research. An ethnography dominated by observation or a document-analysis study may be better served by broader standards and methodology-specific guidance.

JARS-Qual

JARS-Qual provides journal-article reporting standards intended to accommodate a wide range of qualitative traditions.[3] It reinforces the importance of explicating the methodological approach, researcher perspective, participant or data-source selection, analysis and evidentiary support.

DECISION GUIDE

Use reporting guidance according to study design

• Start with SRQR for broad qualitative reporting coverage.
• Add COREQ when interviews or focus groups are central data-generation methods.
• Consider JARS-Qual where relevant to the journal, discipline or manuscript format.
• Use methodology-specific expectations for ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenology or other specialised designs.
• Follow the target journal’s instructions in addition to methodological reporting guidance.
• Do not claim that checklist completion proves study quality.

Title and abstract

The title should indicate the phenomenon and, where useful, the qualitative design or approach. Avoid using “qualitative study” as decoration if the methodology can be named more precisely.

The abstract should state enough design information to understand the evidence: setting, participants or data sources, data-generation method, analytic approach and central findings. The abstract should report findings rather than promise that “themes will be discussed”.

Improving an abstract methods sentence

illustrative

Weak: “A qualitative approach was used and data were thematically analysed.”

Stronger: “We conducted semi-structured interviews with women who had and had not completed postpartum glucose testing, using maximum-variation purposive sampling across three clinics. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with iterative memoing and attention to disconfirming accounts.”

The stronger version remains concise while disclosing decisions necessary for interpretation.

Introduction: justify the qualitative question

The introduction should establish the problem and explain what remains unknown. A qualitative study should not be justified merely by stating that “few qualitative studies have been conducted”. The gap should concern knowledge that qualitative inquiry can address—for example, how patients interpret a service transition, how clinicians negotiate competing priorities or how an intervention is enacted in context.

The research question or aim should use language consistent with the intended knowledge claim: explore, understand, describe experiences, develop a theory, examine how, or another formulation appropriate to the methodology.

Methods: report methodological coherence

Qualitative approach and paradigm

Name the methodology or analytic approach when one exists. If the study uses a generic qualitative descriptive design, describe it rather than borrowing labels from phenomenology or grounded theory without adopting their methodology.

Where paradigm or theoretical orientation materially shapes the study, report it and explain its role. Avoid adding a philosophical label that has no visible consequence for the design.

Researcher characteristics and reflexivity

Both SRQR and COREQ emphasise researcher characteristics and reflexivity.[1,2] Report details that help readers understand data generation and interpretation:

• professional or disciplinary background;
• role in the service or community;
• prior relationships with participants;
• relevant assumptions or commitments;
• interviewer training or experience; and
• how reflexivity was incorporated.

Do not turn this section into an irrelevant biography. Select characteristics that matter for the research relationship or interpretation.

Context and setting

Context is part of the evidence. Describe service organisation, relevant policy, location and social conditions necessary to interpret participants’ accounts. “A tertiary hospital” may be insufficient if referral pathways, rural catchment or discharge practices are central to the findings.

Sampling and recruitment

Report:

• sample universe and eligibility;
• purposive or other sampling strategy;
• recruitment source and approach;
• gatekeepers;
• reasons for non-participation where known and appropriate;
• final sample composition; and
• rationale for sample adequacy.

Avoid the uninformative phrase “purposive sampling was used until saturation”. Specify the type of purposive selection and what saturation meant if it was used.

Data generation

State who conducted interviews or observations, where and when they occurred, their approximate duration, whether others were present, whether they were recorded, how field notes were used, how guides evolved and whether repeat encounters occurred.

For translated interviews, explain the language pathway and whether coding occurred in the original language or after translation.

Ethics

Report ethics approval or exemption as applicable, consent, confidentiality measures and important study-specific ethical issues. For sensitive qualitative research, describe protections proportionate to the actual risks rather than relying only on an ethics-reference number.

Reporting qualitative analysis

The analysis section should identify the analytic approach and show enough of the process that the reader understands how interpretations developed.

Include as relevant:

• familiarisation;
• coding orientation;
• role of theory or prior frameworks;
• development of categories, themes or theory;
• iterative data collection and analysis;
• use of memos;
• multiple-analyst roles;
• treatment of contradictory cases;
• software used for data management; and
• reflexive practices.

Malterud emphasises that qualitative research quality depends on transparent, systematic and reflexive practice rather than vague claims of intuition.[4]

Report software accurately

Software can organise data; researchers conduct the analysis. Write “NVivo was used to manage coding and retrieve data” rather than “NVivo analysed the transcripts and generated themes”.

Describe changes

Qualitative analysis often evolves. If initial framework categories were revised, if new participants were purposively sought or if the interview guide changed because of emerging analysis, report those changes when they matter to interpretation.

PROTOCOL CHECKLIST

Methods reporting audit before submission

Can the reader determine:

• the qualitative methodology or analytic approach?
• the paradigm or theoretical orientation where relevant?
• who the researchers were in relation to the setting and participants?
• where the study occurred and why context matters?
• who or what could be sampled?
• how participants or materials were selected and recruited?
• what data were generated and by whom?
• how sample adequacy was judged?
• how data were processed, translated and stored?
• how codes, categories, themes or theory were developed?
• what role multiple analysts and software played?
• what reflexive and trustworthiness practices were actually performed?
• what ethical protections were relevant?

Results: report analysis, not a quotation catalogue

A qualitative results section should make analytic claims and support them with data. Themes or categories should answer the research question rather than reproduce the interview guide.

Use quotations purposefully

A quotation can:

• exemplify a common pattern;
• show nuance;
• demonstrate a contradiction;
• preserve a participant’s framing; or
• provide evidence for an interpretation.

Quotations should not replace explanation. The researcher should state what the extract demonstrates and how it relates to the broader dataset.

Identify quotations without compromising confidentiality

Use participant identifiers that convey useful context without enabling recognition. In a small specialist service, combining age, occupation, rare diagnosis and site may identify a participant even when the name is removed.

Show variation

If all reported quotations tell the same story, readers cannot judge variation. Where analytically relevant, include contrasting accounts and describe their relationship to the principal pattern.

WORKED EXAMPLE

From descriptive topic to analytic result

Weak result:

“Theme 1 was barriers. Participants mentioned transport, childcare and appointments. One participant said, ‘It was difficult to come back.’”

Stronger analytic structure:

Maternal preventive care lost organisational priority after discharge. Women described intensive scheduling for infant care but no equivalent mechanism for their own glucose testing. Transport and childcare became consequential because maternal follow-up required a separate, self-initiated journey. This pattern was most visible among women whose discharge instructions named a time window but no specific service. A minority who received a booked appointment described follow-up as routine rather than optional.

The stronger version moves beyond topic listing. It states an interpretation, explains a mechanism and identifies a contrasting condition.

Discussion

The discussion should return to the study question and interpret the findings in relation to existing evidence, theory and context. It should distinguish what the study found from what the authors infer.

Discuss transferability carefully

Avoid claiming that findings are “generalisable to all women” because themes occurred repeatedly. Instead, describe contextual features and reason about where the findings may be relevant.

Discuss limitations as methodological boundaries

Qualitative limitations should not be a ritual statement that “the sample was small”. A small sample may be appropriate for a narrow, information-rich question. More informative limitations include:

• restricted access to particular perspectives;
• gatekeeper effects;
• insufficient contextual variation;
• social desirability within a researcher-participant relationship;
• limited observation periods;
• translation constraints; or
• analytic commitments that foreground some meanings over others.

Do not apologise for qualitative design

A qualitative study should not be described as “unable to prove statistical significance” unless statistical estimation was actually its purpose. Evaluate it against the knowledge claim it was designed to make.

Reporting trustworthiness without ritual phrases

Tracy’s quality framework emphasises rich rigour, sincerity, credibility and meaningful coherence among broader criteria.[5] Reporting should therefore make quality practices visible through the manuscript rather than collecting them into one paragraph of labels.

Replace a trustworthiness formula with specific reporting

illustrative

Weak: “Trustworthiness was ensured by triangulation, member checking and an audit trail.”

Stronger: “Interview interpretations were compared with discharge observations and patient-facing documents to examine convergence and divergence. Preliminary interpretations were discussed with a participant advisory group as member reflection; disagreements were retained as additional analytic material. Sampling and theme-development decisions were documented in analytic memos and a versioned decision log.”

Tables and figures in qualitative manuscripts

Tables can clarify participant characteristics, data sources, theme structures or methodology without replacing prose. Figures can show conceptual relationships or an emergent model.

Avoid forcing every theme into a table when the narrative is necessary to preserve meaning. Do not present code counts as though they establish importance unless frequency was intentionally part of the analytic method.

Reporting mixed qualitative sources

When a study combines interviews, focus groups, observation and documents, identify which data support which claims. Readers should be able to tell whether a theme emerged across sources or primarily from one source.

A transparent statement might explain that interviews generated patient perspectives, observation examined workflow and documents contextualised formal service expectations. “Data triangulation was performed” is insufficient.

Appraising a reported qualitative study

APPRAISAL CHECKLIST

Reporting and appraisal questions

• Is the research question clearly suited to qualitative inquiry?
• Is the methodology named and coherent with the question?
• Are setting and context sufficient to interpret the findings?
• Are researcher characteristics and relationships disclosed where relevant?
• Is sampling purposeful and transparently described?
• Are data-generation procedures detailed enough to understand what evidence was produced?
• Is sample adequacy justified rather than asserted?
• Is the analytic approach described beyond the software name?
• Are reflexivity and trustworthiness practices concrete?
• Do reported themes or categories answer the research question?
• Are analytic claims supported with appropriate evidence and variation?
• Are transfer claims appropriately bounded?
• Are ethical and confidentiality issues addressed?
• Has the appropriate reporting standard been used without treating it as a quality score?

Suggested manuscript wording

Common mistakes

Knowledge check

Does completing every COREQ item prove that an interview study is high quality?

Answer and reasoning

No. COREQ improves reporting completeness for interview and focus-group studies. It cannot convert an incoherent question, poor recruitment strategy or superficial analysis into a rigorous study. Reporting completeness and methodological quality are related but distinct.

When should researcher characteristics be reported?

Answer and reasoning

Report characteristics and relationships that may help readers understand data generation or interpretation—for example, professional role, prior relationship to the service, interviewer experience or relevant assumptions. An exhaustive biography is unnecessary.

Why is 'NVivo was used to identify themes' inadequate reporting?

Answer and reasoning

Software manages and retrieves data; researchers make interpretive decisions. The methods should name the analytic approach and explain coding, theme or category development, iterative review and researcher roles.

A manuscript has only 15 interview participants. Is 'small sample size' automatically its principal limitation?

Answer and reasoning

No. Sample adequacy depends on the question, specificity of participants, quality of dialogue, analytic strategy and information power. More meaningful limitations may concern missing perspectives, recruitment pathways, weak depth or narrow contextual variation.

What should a qualitative quotation do in the results section?

Answer and reasoning

It should provide evidence for an analytic claim, illustrate variation or preserve a participant framing. It should be introduced and interpreted rather than used as a substitute for analysis.

Key take-home messages

SUMMARY

Key take-home messages

• Transparent qualitative reporting makes the research process and evidential basis appraisable.
• SRQR is broadly applicable, whereas COREQ specifically targets interview and focus-group studies.
• Report researcher position, context, sampling, data generation and analysis when they matter to interpretation.
• Findings should be analytic claims supported by selected evidence, not quotation catalogues or interview-guide headings.
• Describe transferability and limitations in relation to the actual qualitative knowledge claim.
• Reporting checklists improve completeness but do not certify methodological quality.

References

1. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
2. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
3. Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, Frost DM, Josselson R, Suárez-Orozco C. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):26-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
4. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
5. Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010;16(10):837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121