Since the 1970’s a renaissance of qualitative methods in many fields of social and behavioral sciences can be noted, which is particularly true for educational research all over Europe (Torrance 2010). After decades of more or less disagreement, mutual rejection and even confrontation between proponents of qualitative and quantitative methodology, this original dispute has given way meanwhile to a gradual convergence of both “camps” which has led to integrating methodological concepts such as “triangulation” (Denzin 1989) or “mixed methods” (e.g. Collins, Onwuegbuzie, Johnson 2012; Johnson, Christensen 2010; Symonds, Gorard 2010). Nonetheless, there is still a decisive separating difference between the two methodological paradigms which aggravates mutual acknowledgement and connectivity for the most part: i.e. in dealing with quality standards of research.

In the empirical tradition a number of scientific criteria has been drawn up and discussed. These criteria include the basic notion that scientific arguing is done systematically and methodically (for instance also considering alternative hypotheses). Scientific statements are justified. They are comprehensible and they must be examinable. Objective results must be discernibly separated from interpretations. Potential sources of error and deficits have to be displayed explicitly. The production of statements should follow the ideals of objectivity, generalizability, repeatability, testability and falsifiability. These criteria are widely recognized among quantitative researchers as guiding ideas or as a regulative operational framework (e.g. Feuer et al. 2010). They provide guidelines for the research process and they are subjected to checks.

However, among qualitative researchers no extensive general agreement to these or other standards of research quality can be recognized yet, although a lively debate on it has already started in many countries, such as in the UK (e.g. Hammersley 2010; Seale 1999), in the USA (Ivankova 2012; Tracy 2010) or Germany (e.g. Helfferich 2004; Mayring 2012). The lack of this agreement on commonly shared standards has consequences: The evaluation of qualitative research projects and of the soundness of their findings is not feasible, at least not on the basis of generally recognized (in-group) criteria.

Four distinct perspectives on quality standards within the qualitative research approach can be identified within the currrent discourse: (1) the rejection of any standards whatsoever, accompanied by a post-modern, constructivist attitude, (2) the establishment of own “alternative” standards specific to qualitative research while rejecting so-called “conventional” (“quantitative”) standards, (3) the reference to (new) shared standards which should be sought and established by both, qualitative and quantitative researchers, and (4) the acceptance of the same quality standards as considered valid for the quantitative approach. This paper discusses these four viewpoints in handling the question of standards of research, examines their soundness and finally results in suggestions on how to deal with standards on the basis of normative references.

In order to facilitate this discussion the distinction between two research phases is helpful: the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification”. The first comprises explorative discovery with the goal of generating assumptions or questions, developing theories or models. The latter deals with hypothesis testing or finding sound answers to research questions.

The context of discovery phase does not need to fulfill any strict rules. Hypotheses can be attained in a field-sensitive and creative process in which no objective rules apply. Often they are the result of an unstructured brainstorming. Therefore, a debate on quality standards of qualitative research settled in the context of discovery is unnecessary. However, as soon as qualitative research claims to test hypotheses or find valid answers for research questions, i.e. is established in the terrain of justification context, considerations on quality standards criteria are crucial in order to judge the significance of its results.

Collins K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie A. J., Johnson R.B. (2012): Securing a place at the table: A review and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56 (6), 849-865. Denzin N. (1989): The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Butterworth. Feuer M., Towne L., Shavelson R. (2010): Scientific culture and educational research. In: Torrance H. (ed): Qualitative research methods in education. Vol 4: Contemporary methods, issues and debates in qualitative research in education (261-283). Los Angeles: Sage. Hammersley M. (2010): The issue of quality in qualitative research. In: Torrance, H. (ed): Qualitative research methods in education. Vol 4: Contemporary methods, issues and debates in qualitative research in education (313-332). Los Angeles: Sage. Helfferich C. (2004): Die Qualität qualitativer Daten [The quality of qualitative data]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ivankova N.V. (2012): Implementing quality criteria in designing and conducting a sequential mixed-methods study. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, B.C. Johnson R. B., Christensen L. (2010): Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mayring P. (2012): Mixed Methods – ein Plädoyer für gemeinsame Forschungsstandards qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden [Pleading for mutual research standards of qualitative and quantitative methods]. In: Gläser-Zikuda M, Seidel T., Rohlfs C., Gröschner A., Ziegelbauer S. (Hrsg.): Mixed Methods in der empirischen Bildungsforschung (287-300). Münster: Waxmann. Schnabel K. (1999): Wissenschaft ist Abstraktion, aber Abstraktes ist zu nix zu gebrauchen [Science is abstraction, but abstract things are of no use]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 4, 333-336. Seale C. (1999): The quality of qualitative research. London: Thousand Oaks. Symonds J.E., Gorard S. (2010): Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23 (2), 121-136. Torrance H. (ed) (2010): Qualitative research methods in education. Los Angeles: Sage (4 volumes). Tracy S. (2010): Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837-851.