Skip to main content
Log in

Qualitative Health Research and the IRB: Answering the “So What?” with Qualitative Inquiry

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Qualitative inquiry is increasingly used to foster change in health policy and practice. Research ethics committees often misunderstand qualitative inquiry, assuming its design can be judged by criteria of quantitative science. Traditional health research uses scientific realist standards as a means-to-an-end, answering the question “So what?” to support the advancement of practice and policy. In contrast, qualitative inquiry often draws on constructivist paradigms, generating knowledge either as an end-in-itself or as a means to foster change. When reviewers inappropriately judge qualitative inquiry, it restricts the ways health phenomena can be understood. Qualitative inquiry is necessary because it enables an understanding not possible within scientific explanation. When such research illuminates, it can also shed light onto the “So what?” In order to ensure an appraisal of qualitative inquiry congruent with its paradigmatic premises, we suggest the “Illumination Test,” met when findings foster rich understanding of phenomena, resulting in a reflective “aha!”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Commonly called Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada, Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in USA.

  2. We use ‘interpretive’ as a descriptive term and not to necessarily imply the hermeneutical paradigm.

References

  • Barbour, R. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog. BMJ, 322, 1115–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, F. (2005). Ethical care of the critically ill child: A conception of a ‘thick’ bioethics. Nursing Ethics, 12(3), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eakin, J. M., & Mykhalovskiy, E. (2003). Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: Reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9(2), 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankford, D. (1994). Scientism and economism in the regulation of health care. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and the Law, 19, 774–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, M. E., Liben, S., Carnevale, F. A., Rennick, J. E., Wolf, S. L., Meloche, D., et al. (2005). Parental perspectives on hospital staff members’ acts of kindness and commemoration after a child’s death. Pediatrics, 116(4), 884–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, J. Z. (1997). Public discourse and public policy: Some ways that metaphor constrains health (care). Journal of Medical Humanities, 18(4), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Ellen Macdonald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Macdonald, M.E., Carnevale, F.A. Qualitative Health Research and the IRB: Answering the “So What?” with Qualitative Inquiry. J Acad Ethics 6, 1–5 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-007-9051-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-007-9051-7

Keywords

Navigation