LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Booth, A.; Carroll, C.; Ilott, I.; Low, L.L.; Cooper, K. (2013)
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Actively seeking the disconfirming or deviant case is properly regarded as a hallmark of trustworthiness in primary\ud qualitative research. The need to subject emergent theory to such testing is no less important within qualitative\ud systematic reviews. There is, as yet, little available guidance on how to implement such strategies. Few researchers\ud have described the practicalities of seeking the disconfirming case. We survey the methodological literature to\ud gain a better understanding of how systematic reviews of qualitative research handle the disconfirming case. We\ud reflect on our own experience from three recent qualitative evidence syntheses. We describe how reviewers might\ud actively manufacture opportunities to identify discrepant or refutational findings. We conclude by outlining possible\ud methods by which a team might integrate active seeking of a disconfirming case within the overall review process.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article