Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research

Within human resource development (HRD) there is an increasing call for in-depth qualitative research to enhance the evidence-base associated with the field.However, like the HRD community across the world, the qualitative research community is a disparate one.Different scholars draw on a range of research strategies that include (and are not limited to): case study, ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, biographical, narrative, historical and participatory inquiry (Denzin, 2017).Qualitative research is a vibrant and emerging field; different epistemological and disciplinary positions are represented and, given the emergent and diverse nature of the field, it is not surprising that no consensus has been achieved about 'rigor'.Indeed, even the term 'rigor' is contested (Barusch, Gringeri, & George, 2011).As the leading journal concerned with empirical research in the HRD field the editors of Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ) are clear that researcher reputation, citation, and impact scores are not simple 'proxies' for research quality; nor are they the basis of judgements of our own work and that of others (cf.Denzin, 2017).As the field of research continues to develop, in both predictable and unexpected ways, it is important that we continuously review and clarify our editorial expectations of criteria for quality and excellence in qualitative research and so this editorial addresses two questions: How is HRD research and scholarship enriched through qualitative research? What criteria are appropriate for evaluating the quality of qualitative research?