Reference no: EM133228385

Using the Guidelines for Critiquing Qualitative Designs (Polit & Beck, p. 483). Answer questions below with the article. Please no duplicating answers. Thanks

Was a research tradition for the qualitative study identified? If none was identified, can one be inferred? If more than one was identified, is this justifiable or does it suggest "method slurring"?
Is the research question congruent with a qualitative approach and with the specific research tradition (i.e., is the domain of inquiry for the study congruent with the domain encompassed by the tradition)? Are the data sources, research methods, and analytic approach congruent with the research tradition?
How well was the research design described? Were design decisions explained and justified? Does it appear that the researcher made all design decisions up-front, or did the design emerge during data collection, allowing researchers to capitalize on early information?
Is the design appropriate, given the research question? Does the design lend itself to a thorough, in-depth, intensive examination of the phenomenon of interest? What design elements might have strengthened the study (e.g., a longitudinal perspective rather than a cross-sectional one)?
Did the researcher spend a sufficient amount of time doing fieldwork or collecting the research data?
Was there evidence of reflexivity in the design?
Was the study undertaken with an ideologic perspective? If so, is there evidence that ideologic methods and goals were achieved (e.g., Was there evidence of full collaboration between researchers and participants? Did the research have the power to be transformative, or is there evidence that a transformative process occurred?)?