This commentary re-examines recent proposals to define quality in qualitative research through a singular unifying framework, situating them alongside historical and ongoing debates in qualitative methodology. By juxtaposing different traditions, this piece highlights areas of tension between procedural notions of rigour and interpretive approaches that emphasise the co-constructed, context-bound nature of meaning. The discussion argues that quality in qualitative research cannot be captured by a single metric or universal rule. Reflexive approaches resist rigid frameworks, instead favouring a situational and evolving engagement with meaning. While efforts to promote transparency and accountability in qualitative research are valuable, researchers should adopt methodological criteria aligned with their epistemological commitments. We argue that qualitative research can be considered rigorous insofar as it is deeply reflective, explicitly contextualised and transparent about its interpretive manoeuvres.
Ng et al. (Thu,) studied this question.