This article, titled “Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach,” is authored by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. It was published in Qualitative Research in Psychology, Volume 22, Issue 2, on pages 399–438, and became available online on October 30, 2024. The article can be accessed via its DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244. Virginia Braun is a Professor at the School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, in Aotearoa/New Zealand, while Victoria Clarke is an Associate Professor at the School of Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. The article is open access under a Creative Commons Attribution License.
The authors’ motivation for this work stems from their observations as authors, reviewers, readers, and qualitative methodologists, noting “tensions, inconsistencies and frustrations around qualitative reporting” despite the flourishing volume of qualitative research. They express concerns about existing reporting checklists and standards, which often serve as key tools for determining publishability and quality in qualitative research.
The central argument of the article is the development of a new set of reporting guidelines for qualitative research that are designed to be “evaluated on its own terms”. They assert that current evaluative tools frequently introduce methodological incongruence because their criteria do not align with the inherent values of Big Q Qualitative research. Big Q Qualitative research is defined as approaches to generating and analyzing qualitative data that are underpinned by qualitative research values, including specific paradigms and meta-theoretical assumptions, which are typically incommensurable with the dominant (post)positivist/objectivist and scientific realist ideals prevalent in many disciplines, such as psychology. The authors argue that the application of ill-fitting criteria risks undermining the vitality and creativity of Big Q Qualitative research.
To address these issues, Braun and Clarke introduce the Big Q Qualitative Reporting Guidelines (BQQRG). The BQQRG provides a values-based framework for reporting and evaluating qualitative research, rather than a consensus-based one. This approach is specifically delimited to research conducted within Big Q Qualitative frameworks, conceptualized broadly as non-positivist research that is qualitative in its values, paradigm, data, and analytic and reporting practices. The guidelines are designed to support methodologically congruent and reflexively open evaluation and reporting of Big Q Qualitative research.
Key concepts underpinning the BQQRG include:
- Methodological congruence (or integrity): This principle emphasizes that all elements of the research—philosophical assumptions, research questions, design, methods, data treatment, and so on—should “fit together” conceptually. It requires a “knowing” researcher who understands their theoretical and personal perspectives and is deliberate and reflexive in their decision-making and reporting.
- Reflexive openness (or transparency): This concept involves clearly articulating what the researcher did, and how and why, including their theoretical assumptions, research goals, data generation practices, analytic processes, and their own positionality and subjectivity. It encourages a departure from detached, objective writing styles and promotes honesty about the “mess” and evolution of the research process.
The authors highlight the distinction between “checklists,” “standards,” and “guidelines”. They critique popular tools like COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) as a “checklist” that is overly rigid and based on a “criteriological approach” assuming universal markers of quality, often leading to methodological incongruence due to its inherent small q/postpositivist leanings. Similarly, while JARS-Qual (Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research) is less rigid and acknowledges diversity, the authors caution that its use of “standards” can still evoke an ideal and risk being applied prescriptively, often defaulting to (post)positivist framings inadvertently. Braun and Clarke prefer the term “guidelines” because it signals a looser, less directive intent, relying more on reviewers’ interpretive judgments and encouraging thoughtful practice over mechanistic adherence.
The development methodology of the BQQRG is “unapologetically subjective” and does not rely on consensus or consolidation, distinguishing it from many existing tools. The authors reflected on and reworked elements from COREQ, JARS-Qual, and SRQR, retaining those that cohered with Big Q values and rejecting or replacing others. The guidelines also explicitly list “Practices to avoid” that are commonly, but mistakenly, assumed to be generic in qualitative research. The authors acknowledge that terminology in qualitative research is contested (e.g., “data,” “method”) but encourage researchers to choose terms conceptually consistent with their underlying research values. They emphasize that the BQQRG is situated, partial, subjective, and intended to evolve as qualitative research practices develop.
The purpose of these guidelines is both pedagogical and strategic. They aim to help less expert scholars report methodologically congruent and reflexively open research, particularly when navigating reviews from those unknowingly rooted in small q/positivist perspectives. The BQQRG offers researchers a tool to “resist demands to utilize procedures or practice that are mismatched”. While designed for journal articles, the guidelines are also useful for other formats like theses or dissertations. The authors explicitly state their intention is not to stifle creativity or mandate a “one best way” of reporting, but rather to provide guidance against entrenched (post)positivist norms that can hinder Big Q Qualitative research.
The authors’ “qualitative horizons” are deeply rooted in feminist, LGBTQIA+, and critical psychology, with a focus on “meaning”. Their extensive experience spans various qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups, qualitative surveys) and theoretical approaches (e.g., constructionism, poststructuralism, critical realism, feminism). This background positions them to develop guidelines that genuinely reflect the diverse and value-driven nature of Big Q Qualitative inquiry.
The BQQRG is presented in a table format (Table 1), outlining recommended practices for different sections of a qualitative manuscript (e.g., Writing style, Terminology, Introduction, Methodology, Data generation, Data analysis procedures, Quality practices, Analysis, Discussion/Conclusion). Each section includes practices to consider, practices to avoid, and notes for reviewers/editors less familiar with Big Q, aiming to provide clear, actionable guidance for promoting methodological congruence and reflexive openness.
Reference: Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2025). Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 22(2), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244.