This manuscript provides critical reflections on using reporting guidelines in qualitative research and examines the tensions that arise when universal checklists are applied across diverse methodological traditions. While transparency and rigor are essential, our manuscript supports that widely adopted tools such as COREQ-32 insufficiently capture the epistemological and procedural features of certain methodologies, particularly Constructivist Grounded Theory. Drawing on existing critiques and emerging methodology-specific frameworks, we argue that rigid, sometimes unvalidated criteria could impede methodological congruence and provide limitations to report Constructivist Grounded Theory research. This reflection contributes to methodological scholarship by advocating for reporting guidance that aligns with the philosophical and methodological stance of each qualitative approach. Therefore, we call for nuanced, method-congruent standards that enhance transparency while preserving the richness, reflexivity, and flexibility that underpin excellence in qualitative inquiry.
Bobbink et al. (Thu,) studied this question.