Editorial
Hessameddin Ghanbar; Reza Rezvani
Volume 12, Special issue (Quality in Qualitative Research) , September 2025, Pages 1-3
Research Paper
Joanne Cheng; Sonja Mecham
Abstract
Ethics in research have become an increasingly important area in applied linguistics (Yaw et al., 2023). Specifically, there has been greater attention to micro-ethics, which are the day-to-day practices undertaken by researchers to manage ethical decisions throughout the research process (De Costa et ...
Read More
Ethics in research have become an increasingly important area in applied linguistics (Yaw et al., 2023). Specifically, there has been greater attention to micro-ethics, which are the day-to-day practices undertaken by researchers to manage ethical decisions throughout the research process (De Costa et al., 2019). However, little research exists to understand the processes for how researchers acquire micro-ethical research skills. Our duoethnographic study, which was inspired by Burleigh and Burm’s (2022) framework, explores our own experiences as students in a qualitative research methods class that emphasized ethical practices, reflexivity, and positionality. Through our conversations, we identified key practices that enhanced our micro-ethical awareness and attention to positionality. First, we learned to value transparency and effective collaboration with participants as micro-ethical practices. Building positive relationships can mitigate micro-ethical issues and inform our understanding of positionality. We outlined core micro-ethical values, including co-constructing knowledge and navigating power dynamics respectfully, which should be applied throughout all research stages. Second, we explored our understanding of positionality: a researcher’s positionality may differ across various research sites and interactions, raising questions about their role in maintaining ethical integrity, especially when teaching while conducting research. Researchers can boost methodological rigor by reflecting on and being transparent about micro-ethical decisions and positionality throughout the research process and by building positive relationships with the participant community. We conclude by emphasizing that professional training, mentorship, hands-on experience, and reflection are essential for novice researchers learning to embed these ethical principles into everyday research practices.
Research Paper
Hessameddin Ghanbar; Mohadeseh Asghari
Abstract
In the evolving landscape of integrative higher education in Iran, teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) students presents unique linguistic, cultural, and pedagogical challenges. This study uses narrative inquiry to explore how university instructors perceive and enact effective English ...
Read More
In the evolving landscape of integrative higher education in Iran, teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) students presents unique linguistic, cultural, and pedagogical challenges. This study uses narrative inquiry to explore how university instructors perceive and enact effective English language instruction for DHH learners. Drawing on semi-structured interviews and narrative frames from ten experienced instructors—some with direct knowledge of Iranian Sign Language (ISL)—the research highlights the emotional, visual, and ethical complexities of English teaching in bimodal classrooms. Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), the study identified four interrelated themes: Cultural Resonance, Visual-First Instruction, Formal-Relational Calibration, and Instructor Reflexivity. These themes reveal that effective teaching for DHH students requires more than technical adaptation; it calls for culturally grounded practices, visual-semiotic reengineering of materials, emotional attunement, and ongoing pedagogical renewal. The findings offer important implications for teacher training, curriculum design, and policy development, particularly in contexts where linguistic equity and cultural identity are often marginalized. This study positions instructors not only as educators but also as cultural mediators and agents of change in the pursuit of accessible, just, and empowering English education for DHH university students.
Research Paper
Jaber Kamali
Abstract
This paper critically examines the concept of trustworthiness in autoethnographic research, a qualitative approach often challenged on various methodological and epistemological grounds. It begins with a personal narrative, illustrating how autoethnography resonates deeply with the author’s academic ...
Read More
This paper critically examines the concept of trustworthiness in autoethnographic research, a qualitative approach often challenged on various methodological and epistemological grounds. It begins with a personal narrative, illustrating how autoethnography resonates deeply with the author’s academic and professional identity. The paper then engages with four recurring critiques frequently directed at autoethnographic work, namely invisible data, over-subjectivity, misrepresentation of others, and navel-gazing. Each critique is explored in depth, followed by practical and theoretical strategies to mitigate its impact. These include data triangulation, reflexive questioning, collaborative validation, ethical representation, and alignment with established qualitative research criteria. Drawing on constructivist epistemologies, the study argues that when handled rigorously, personal experience can serve as a legitimate and valuable source of knowledge. The paper concludes with implications for both autoethnographers and critics, advocating for more reflexive, transparent, and dialogic practices that elevate the scholarly value of autoethnography while preserving its distinctive voice and transformative potential.
Research Paper
Shaghayegh Karimzadeh; Taha Saedi; Mohammad َAmini farsani
Abstract
With the rapid rise of Q methodology across a range of disciplines in recent decades, an increasing number of researchers have embraced this innovative approach to reveal individuals’ opinions and beliefs as expressions of subjectivity, which has been greatly supported by the qualitative dimension ...
Read More
With the rapid rise of Q methodology across a range of disciplines in recent decades, an increasing number of researchers have embraced this innovative approach to reveal individuals’ opinions and beliefs as expressions of subjectivity, which has been greatly supported by the qualitative dimension embedded in the method. This makes Q particularly well-suited to applied linguistics (AL) as a branch of educational research, where participants’ perspectives often shape the core of the investigation. Yet, despite its growing use, the qualitative side of Q has received limited attention in the literature, and no clear framework currently guide Q researchers in how to plan, conduct, and transparently report this aspect. In this methodological review, we sought to examine 55 empirical Q studies in AL published in various journals over the past five years (2019–2024). We extracted the qualitative components and analyzed the interview features across three phases of the Q process, namely, pre-sorting, while-sorting, and post-sorting. It was discovered that to handle interviews in Q, a variety of methodological choices are practiced, with different frequencies. However, a considerable number of qualitative details were missing in the reports, particularly concerning post-sorting phase in general and interview approach in particular. The current study contributes to the ongoing discussion of qualitative practices in Q methodology as well as the broader discourse on transparency in qualitative research. Ultimately, we offer a practical checklist (CHIP-Q) to support the systematic planning and transparent reporting of qualitative phases in Q studies.
Research Paper
Rebecca B Leach; Sarah J. Tracy
Abstract
Tracy’s (2010) big-tent model is a well-established, highly cited approach for assessing qualitative quality with eight criteria: a) worthy topic, b) rich rigor, c) sincerity, d) credibility, e) resonance, f) significant contribution, g) ethics, and h) meaningful coherence. In this piece, we reflect ...
Read More
Tracy’s (2010) big-tent model is a well-established, highly cited approach for assessing qualitative quality with eight criteria: a) worthy topic, b) rich rigor, c) sincerity, d) credibility, e) resonance, f) significant contribution, g) ethics, and h) meaningful coherence. In this piece, we reflect on the big-tent model’s functions, strengths, and recent extensions. Looking forward, we highlight the importance of play in producing excellent qualitative research and creating space for methodological innovation. Examples of play and what it can look like in qualitative research are included.
Research Paper
Nari Kim
Abstract
This paper critically examines the growing debate over the relevance of replication in qualitative research, especially within language education. While replication has long been central to quantitative research as a means of ensuring generalizability, transparency, and methodological rigor, its applicability ...
Read More
This paper critically examines the growing debate over the relevance of replication in qualitative research, especially within language education. While replication has long been central to quantitative research as a means of ensuring generalizability, transparency, and methodological rigor, its applicability to qualitative paradigms remains contested. Advocates argue that replication, particularly in its conceptual form, can enhance the trustworthiness of qualitative inquiry by promoting transparency and reflexivity. Critics, however, question whether replication is compatible with qualitative traditions that emphasize contextuality, subjectivity, and co-construction. This paper explores these tensions by differentiating between generalizability and transferability and evaluating whether the notion of replication, originally rooted in positivist assumptions, can be reframed to align with qualitative values. The paper further examines alternative concepts such as analytic and intersectional generalizability. It concludes that the term replication may not fully capture the aims of many qualitative inquiries, and the broader goals of rigor, transparency, and meaningful knowledge-building can still be pursued through established qualitative practices. This discussion invites more nuanced approaches to evaluating quality in qualitative research by considering how replication aligns with, or conflicts with, the epistemological and methodological foundations of different qualitative paradigms.
Research Paper
Kyle Perkins
Abstract
I propose that quantitative research designs should be used to augment and to complement the validation of qualitative research in a mixed methods design for the following reasons. Combining quantitative and qualitative data allows the phenomenon under study to be explored more deeply and allows for ...
Read More
I propose that quantitative research designs should be used to augment and to complement the validation of qualitative research in a mixed methods design for the following reasons. Combining quantitative and qualitative data allows the phenomenon under study to be explored more deeply and allows for perspectives that may otherwise be overlooked. Moreover, qualitative and quantitative research should meet credibility criteria which have different foci. Qualitative research quality criteria are in flux and are situated within local disciplinary contexts. As a result, there is an absence of universal acceptance and adoption of criteria for judging qualitative study quality. Qualitative and quantitative designs complement each other, and both approaches are necessary
Research Paper
A. Mehdi Riazi
Abstract
Making valid inferences in research is a critical quality indicator. In quantitative research, making valid inferences from the sample data is rather straightforward and streamlined. That is, since quantitative researchers work with a sample, they use specific procedures to make inferences about the ...
Read More
Making valid inferences in research is a critical quality indicator. In quantitative research, making valid inferences from the sample data is rather straightforward and streamlined. That is, since quantitative researchers work with a sample, they use specific procedures to make inferences about the target population from which the sample was selected. This is usually done through inferential statistics procedures. However, when it comes to qualitative research, there is no such straightforward and streamlined procedure for making inferences. There are some general guidelines, but these are not regulated, and qualitative researchers use different procedures to make inferences from their data sources. This paper intends to discuss inference making in qualitative research by focusing on and bringing it into foreground. To shed light on this critical issue, the paper will discuss inference in quantitative and qualitative research, compare the procedures in the two methodological approaches, and discuss some criteria for making quality inferences in qualitative research. The paper will end with some concluding remarks.
