The standard of integrity may be useful when assessing arguments over qualitative review methods: The case of the Joanna Briggs Institute's rebuttal of a fundamental critique

Marielle de Vaal, Peter Andrew Tamás*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

One challenge for those reading methodological debates in low consensus fields is determining the outcome when participants do not share standards. When parties to a debate do not agree on the standards to be used in assessing their arguments (i.e., quality), it may be useful to ask first if parties’ contributions meet their own expectations (i.e., integrity). Most protocols for review of qualitative research specify some form of quality assessment. These protocols normally require some test of internal coherence. Coherence is also relevant when describing the match between a rebuttal and the argument it answers. In 2019, Nursing Inquiry published a critique and rebuttal of the methods used by the Joanna Briggs Institute. In this essay, we attempted to use the Joanna Briggs Institute's own quality assessment standards to assess their rebuttal of this fundamental critique. We found it possible to use the Joanna Briggs Institute's own quality assessment standards to assess this rebuttal, and we found that JBI's rebuttal did not meet their own standards.

Original languageEnglish
JournalNursing Inquiry
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 25 Sep 2021

Keywords

  • argument analysis
  • argument mapping
  • domain analysis
  • meta-synthesis
  • methodology
  • qualitative methods
  • quality assessment
  • systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The standard of integrity may be useful when assessing arguments over qualitative review methods: The case of the Joanna Briggs Institute's rebuttal of a fundamental critique'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this