Qualitative Psychology

© 2021 American Psychological Association 2021, Vol. 8, No. 3, 365–377

ISSN: 2326-3601 https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000217

Is Replication Relevant for Qualitative Research?

Rivka Tuval-Mashiach
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Replication, broadly defined as the repetition of a research study, generally among

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

different subjects and/or situations, is commonly conducted in quantitative research with

the aim of determining whether the basic findings of the original study can be generalized
to other circumstances. Qualitative researchers have for many years objected to the notion
of replicability, seeing it as being incompatible with qualitative research, on several
grounds, including the context-bound nature of qualitative research as well as methodo-
logical and representational limitations. Instead, the concept of transferability has been
suggested, a concept that refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research
can be transferred to other contexts or settings, conducted among other respondents.
However, the value of replication in qualitative research, the similarities and differences
between replication and transferability, and the relation between transferability and
generalization have, to date, scarcely been discussed. In this paper, I make a claim in favor
of a type of replication that is compatible with qualitative research and consider four
critical aspects: the type of replication, the researcher’s epistemological stance and
approach, the aim of the replication, and the nature of the study. Finally, I present two
strategies that are critical when planning a qualitative replication study: consideration of
context(s) and the need for transparency.
Keywords: replication, transferability, generalization, qualitative research, replication
crisis

In recent years, qualitative researchers have to criteria that are used by the readers. To support
been calling for promoting methodological their claim, these authors pointed out that the
integrity (Levitt et al., 2017, 2018). Although paper “Verification strategies for establishing
the common denominator for many qualitative reliability and validity in qualitative research”
researchers has been their objection to criteria (Morse et al., 2002) became, over the years, one
proposed quantitative researchers (Spiers et al., of the most downloaded and cited papers. Indeed,
2018), it has been suggested that it is the wealth of whether for reasons of fostering a common lan-
qualitative approaches and methodologies that guage among qualitative researchers, or encour-
have led each approach to develop its own param- aging communication between qualitative and
eters for assessing the quality of research, leading quantitative researchers, the literature on qual-
to confusion and ambiguity concerning what itative methods and methodologies has been
constitutes rigor in qualitative research. Spiers growing rapidly. This bulk of material has
et al. (2018) claimed that over time a shift strengthened the systematization of methods
occurred from a conceptualization of rigor as and the rigor of qualitative research.
an integral process that the researcher defines The aim of the present paper is to present the
concept of replication (and related concepts) and
discuss its relevance and applicability to qualita-
tive research. Unlike other concepts discussed in
Rivka Tuval-Mashiach https://orcid.org/0000-0002- this special issue (see Levitt, 2021 and Motulsky,
7741-1807 2021), which are part of the qualitative methods
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Rivka Tuval-Mashiach, Department of Psychology,
lexicon and are commonly used by qualitative
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel. Email: researchers, replication has neither been strived
[email protected] for nor encouraged by qualitative researchers and
365
 366 TUVAL-MASHIACH

has in fact been perceived as antithetical to the as it is based on one’s prior knowledge, experience,
foundational assumptions of qualitative research. assumptions, philosophical and paradigmatic stance,
I wish to problematize assumptions regarding and personal sensitivities (Willig, 2017).
replication by first discussing its meaning and Although they share many similarities in their
its applicability in positivist and post-positivist views on truth, interpretation, and researcher
research, and then describe opportunities for its subjectivity, researchers who subscribe to
use by qualitative researchers, as well as what the advocacy/participatory approach view
such researchers must take into account when human experience as always mediated by
considering its use. power relations, take a more active stance
Before I turn to the issue at the heart of this paper, towards social change and emancipation,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

replication, it is important to briefly review the and view the researcher as a proactive agent
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

paradigmatic bases of quantitative and qualitative for such changes (Creswell, 2003). Finally,
research. There are many taxonomies for describing pragmatism concerns itself with finding solu-
research paradigms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; tions to problems, rather than with advocating
Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Ponterotto, 2005). I rely adherence to any one philosophical system.
on the framework suggested by Creswell (2003), as Truth, according to this approach, is defined as
it includes the pragmatist paradigm, which is rele- “what works at the time” (Creswell, 2003,
vant to my discussion of replication, and is lacking p. 12), and therefore, a pluralistic approach
from other schemes (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1994). to research methods is encouraged. This para-
Creswell’s framework includes four paradigms: digm serves as the foundation for mixed-
positivism/post-positivism, constructivism, advo- methods research.
cacy/participatory (in other frameworks referred
to as critical/ideological), and pragmatism.
Positivism assumes that the studied phenome- What Is Replication?
non is “real,” and exists independently of the
One of the basic tenets of the positivist/post-
researchers and their theories/practices and other
positivist scientific method is that the phenome-
contextual aspects. In this regard, scientists are
non in question should be stable and consistent.
called on to “discover and disseminate truth”
Therefore, for quantitative science, the credibility
(Simmons et al., 2011, p. 1365). Postpositivism
of scientific claims depends on the evidence of
holds that one can never fully capture a “true”
their replicability (Freese & Peterson, 2017;
reality. Objectivity as viewed by this approach is
Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). Successful rep-
an ideal to which the researcher strives. Despite
lication is considered a hallmark of good science
this difference between post-positivism and posi-
(Moonesinghe et al., 2007; Simons, 2014) as
tivism, Creswell groups them together as one
replicating a study strengthens the understanding
paradigm, because both paradigms aim to
that an identified pattern or a finding is robust,
explain, predict, and control the studied phenom-
rather than being an error or an artifact. In this
ena, and both emphasize cause–effect linkages of
regard, the replicability of a study serves two
phenomena that can be generalized. Positivism
purposes. First, it adds to the study’s validity,
and post-positivism serve as the primary foun-
because it implies that it can be trusted by other
dation and anchor for quantitative research
researchers. Second, replication allows for
(Ponterotto, 2005).
increased knowledge in the relevant field, as it
Two other paradigms, constructivism and advo-
is through the accumulation of studies examining
cacy/participatory, which serve as the foundation
similar phenomena that a body of knowledge
of qualitative research, hold a very different
is established (Nosek & Errington, 2020).
approach towards the “truth” and reality. Both
take a relativist stance towards knowledge and
perceive reality as a construction rather than as 1
Importantly, not all qualitative approaches accept the
external to the knowers (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).1 dichotomy between objectivist-positivist and constructed
One implication of constructivist-interpretive and perspectives of reality. Hermeneutic and existential ap-
advocacy/participatory perceptions of reality is proaches take a midway approach, that acknowledges the
existence of an independent reality, but denies that there can
that interpretation—perceived as being the main be direct access to that reality, emphasizing instead represen-
tool explaining a phenomenon—is unavoidable. tation and interpretation of social phenomena (Hammersley,
Interpretation by its nature is always subjective, 1992).
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 367

Therefore, from a positivist standpoint, it is ex- definition of the envy “phenomenon,” they might
pected and required that the findings of studies be choose different strategies to collect data (e.g.,
successfully replicated. This point is crucial. The interviews instead of an experiment, or sampling
quality (or success) of replication is defined by its adults instead of adolescents).
results: That is, only if the replication ends with
findings similar to those found in the original The Replication Crisis
study is the original study considered robust and
trustworthy. Despite the critical role of replication in posi-
However, despite being central and significant tivist research, it turns out that replication is not so
in scientific positivist and post-positivist tradi- easy to perform in psychology research. First, for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tions of research, replication has no single defini- a variety of reasons, replication studies are much
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tion. The dictionary defines replication as “the act less frequent than original studies are (see, e.g.,
of making or doing something again in exactly the Open Science Collaboration, 2015, for a discus-
same way,” implying that the two items or cases sion of several factors). Furthermore, in recent
are identical and that sameness between the two is years, at a time when replication studies are being
expected (Cambridge Dictionary). Similarly, seen much more commonly in psychology
Porte (2013) claimed that, “In the context of research, it has become clear that replicating a
testing hypotheses through empirical research, study is much less successful than previously
replication requires “experiments” to be repeated assumed. In 2015, a large replication project
in such a way that we can be reasonably certain in the field of psychology (Open Science
that the results of two experiments are compara- Collaboration, 2015) took place. A large-scale,
ble and, therefore, they are measuring the same collaborative effort to obtain an initial estimate
phenomenon” (Porte, 2013, p. 10). Others, how- of the reproducibility of psychological science
ever, have claimed that defining replication as a was conducted. The researchers tried to repli-
strict repetition of a study is erroneous (Nosek & cate 100 results that were systematically sam-
Errington, 2020). pled from three top-tier psychology journals.
Several related concepts have been suggested. Their findings showed that only 36% of the
Exact replication refers to a strict replication of replication efforts yielded significant findings,
the original study’s procedures, conducted with and that effect sizes in the replication studies
the same subjects who participated in the original were about half the size of those in the original
study. This type of replication is technically studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).
impossible both, because there are unavoidable These findings, together with related criticism
differences between the conditions of the two of psychology researchers’ practices (especially
studies, as well as because in the replication, the inadequate use of statistical methods, see
the subjects are already familiar with the study’s Simmons et al., 2011), led to what has been
procedures, as they participated in the first study termed “the replication crisis” (Lilienfeld,
(Crandall & Sherman, 2016). Another type of 2017; Maxwell et al., 2015; Shrout & Rodgers,
replication suggested is approximate/partial rep- 2018). Interestingly, the debates within the posi-
lication, in which the original study’s operations tivist psychology world resulted in various and, at
and procedures are adhered to but some variables times, opposing recommendations. Some re-
are changed to allow for eventual comparability searchers emphasized the need to do a more
between the two studies and their outcomes rigorous research and to be transparent about
(Porte & Richards, 2012). Conceptual replica- methods and data (Makel & Plucker, 2017;
tion aims to test previous hypotheses using a Tackett & Miller, 2019), whereas others sug-
different experimental design. The researchers gested focusing on partial types of replication,
may use different methods to collect the data or and abandoning the idea of exact replication,
operationalize variables differently from how which in any event was for them irrelevant for
they did so in the original study (Crandall & the kinds of social phenomena that are studied
Sherman, 2016; Trafimow, 2020; Wiggins & by psychologists (Crandall & Sherman, 2016;
Chrisopherson, 2019). Stroebe & Strack, 2014). Other researchers
For example, researchers may wish to replicate claimed that psychological research should
a study whose topic of investigation was envy. focus on overall patterns of replication results
Although they may accept the original study’s from multiple studies rather than single efforts
 368 TUVAL-MASHIACH

to replicate a finding (Maxwell et al., 2015; For example, a number of factors—including

Shrout & Rodgers, 2018). education, political context, geographical loca-
Finally, a recent paper by Nosek and Errington tion, time of the study, and immigration rates—
(2020) criticized the distinctions drawn by others would play a role in the existence of racist
between types of replication (such as direct vs. attitudes towards immigrants. Therefore, it would
conceptual), claiming that “Procedural defini- be unreasonable to expect that the findings ob-
tions of replication are masks for underdeveloped tained in the U.S. in the 1960s in a study among
theoretical expectations” (p. 2). These authors college students in the Midwest would be the
offer a new definition for replication, representing same if the study was conducted today, or in
a dramatic shift from previous definitions and another country, among a different population, or
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

radically changing its meaning. For them, repli- in a state or country where the prevalence of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

cation is “a study for which any outcome would immigrants is high. This example makes emi-
be considered diagnostic evidence about a claim nently clear why it would be odd to expect
from prior research. This definition reduces replication (at least an exact one).
emphasis on operational characteristics of the Finally, qualitative researchers often aim to
study and increases emphasis on the interpreta- study exceptional phenomena, where circum-
tion of possible outcomes” (Nosek & Errington, stances are singular, to learn about individuals
2020, p. 2). with particularly unique attributes or life experi-
This novel definition assumes that all findings ences (Sandelowski, 1986). Such is the case with
of a replication study when rigorously conducted biographical studies, or case study research,
are valid or successful, because any outcome of a where the focus is on individuals. In such cases,
replication adds to the scientific knowledge in one replication, as well as generalization, is less rele-
way or another. The aforementioned literature on vant (Pratt et al., 2020). To summarize this sec-
replication suggests that notions of replication in tion, replication was not—and still is not—an end
quantitative research have changed tremendously to which most qualitative researchers strive.
in recent years and have led to a broader under-
standing and implementation of replication. In Related Concepts in Qualitative Literature
what follows, I discuss the relevance and poten-
tial of replication for qualitative researchers, Qualitative researchers are cognizant of the
against the backdrop of these updated and broader need for evaluating a study’s quality and credi-
notions. bility. Although the criteria used by positivist
researchers do not align with the paradigmatic
Qualitative Research and Replicability assumptions of qualitative researchers, and
despite the inherent diversity in different qualita-
Paradigmatically, the concept of replicability is tive approaches, it has nevertheless been sug-
foreign to most qualitative approaches, on several gested that establishing criteria to ensure rigor
grounds. First, as I have described above, given and credibility for specific studies is necessary.
that interpretation serves as the main tool in Guba and Lincoln (1982) were the first to offer a
qualitative research, and is always subjective, set of criteria, equivalent to the parameters used in
there is no point in trying to replicate a study. the quantitative scientific world, which allow for
Willig (2019) claimed: “Unlike quantitative the quality of qualitative research to be evaluated
research, qualitative research does not aim for on its own terms. Relevant to this discussion on
replicability of its findings. Qualitative research- the applicability of research are the concepts of
ers accept that qualitative analysis is inevitably transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
informed by the researcher’s stance and their Transferability is the degree to which the
approach to interpretation” (p. 4). Furthermore, results of qualitative research can be transferred
the perception of reality as dynamic and ever- to other contexts or settings conducted among
changing, and as constantly influenced by social other respondents (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The
forces and circumstances, especially regarding extent of similarity between the two contexts
social phenomena, implies that every finding is suggests the likelihood of transferability. The
expected to change and is, therefore, unreprodu- researcher facilitates the potential user’s judg-
cible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Gergen, 2014; ment of transferability by providing detailed de-
LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). scriptions. Transferability has been suggested to
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 369

be the equivalent of reliability, which is a criterion study’s researcher aims to follow the decision
used by quantitative researchers and concerns trail used by the original’s study investigator
itself mainly with the replicability of research (Sandelowski, 1986).
findings and the degree to which findings are Confirmability is defined as the degree to
stable and not artifacts (Holloway & Wheeler, which the findings of the study can be confirmed
1996; Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014). The more by other researchers. Confirmability concerns
successful that replications are in repeating a itself with ensuring that the interpretation of
study the better the study’s reliability. Despite the findings is not an artifact of the inquirer’s
the association between transferability and repli- imagination, but is clearly derived from and
cation, they are distinct, as transferability allows embedded in the data. Confirmability is about
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the new study’s researcher to apply the results securing the intersubjectivity of the data. Like
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

from the original study to the new settings, while dependability, confirmability also makes possi-
replication requires that the new study’s ble the application of research findings to other
researcher repeat an aspect (or aspects) of the contexts (Connelly, 2016).
original study. Therefore, transferability is more All of these criteria establish the “trustworthi-
related to questions of generalizability, namely, ness” and credibility of the research, as they are
the ability to generalize from the findings to larger concerned with strategies to assure that the study
populations (Ali & Yusof, 2011). can be trusted and that its findings are valid. As
Indeed, Maxwell (2021) differentiates between described above, replication can serve two related
internal and external generalization: The first but different purposes. One is to confirm the
refers to generalizing within the setting, group, original study’s quality (namely, focusing on
or population studied to persons, events, and its reliability, or trustworthiness) and the other
activities that are not directly represented in the is to enable the extrapolation of findings to other
data collected, and the latter refers to generalizing contexts and populations (namely, related to is-
beyond the person(s) and study circumstances to sues of generalization and transferability).
other persons, settings, cases, or times. According In what follows, I focus on the second
to Maxwell’s definition, external generalization is purpose—that is, extending and extrapolating a
inherently linked with the idea of transferability. study’s findings to other contexts and popula-
Dependability is defined as the stability of tions. This issue is strongly related to the issue of
findings over time (Bitsch, 2005). Procedures generalization, which is defined as “an act of
to promote dependability include maintaining reasoning that involves drawing broad inferences
an audit trail of process logs and holding peer- from particular observations” (Polit & Beck,
debriefings with colleagues (Connelly, 2016). 2010, p. 1253) and is related to the study’s exter-
Krefting (1991) explained that due to the flexible nal validity. The main question underlying the
nature of qualitative research, consistency of issue of generalization is: Of what relevance are
findings—an assumption in quantitative research one study’s findings for other situations or popu-
necessary for conducting a replicative study— lations? Or, in the words of Cartwright and Hardie
cannot be expected. Instead, variability is the (2012) in their discussion on similarity between
norm in qualitative research: studies: “The key question is how good a job this
advice [similarity] does in getting you from ‘it
The key to qualitative work is to learn from the in-
formants rather than control for them. Moreover, instru-
worked there’ to ‘it will work here” (p. 46). Much
ments that are assessed for consistency in qualitative like replication, the concept of generalization has
research are the researcher and the informants, both of historically been perceived as irrelevant and impos-
whom vary greatly within the research project. Qualita- sible in qualitative research and has been rejected
tive research emphasizes the uniqueness of the human by most qualitative researchers (Lincoln & Guba,
situation, so that variation in experience rather than
identical repetition is sought (Krefting, 1991, p. 216).
1985; Payne & Williams, 2005; Porte & Richards,
2012; Sandelowski, 1986).
Therefore, dependability implies trackable However, in recent years, controversy has
variability—that is, variability that the researcher grown around the question of the need for repli-
is able to ascribe to identified sources. In regard to cation and generalization, with new voices
replication, dependability is related to the possi- emphasizing the importance of these concepts
bility of using findings from one study in another, for qualitative research (see a recent volume of
but instead of relying on consistency, the new the journal Qualitative Psychology devoted to
 370 TUVAL-MASHIACH

generalization in qualitative research). Those (at least of the approximate version of the con-
who dismiss the relevance of generalizability cept) should be demanded within qualitative
claim that knowledge is always situational and research. Briefly, these scholars claimed that if
local (Guba, 1981; LeCompte & Goetz, 1982; the original study’s researchers set rigorous stan-
Lichtman, 2006; Ponterotto, 2005; Wertz et al., dards in terms of how data collection procedures
2011). In addition, generalization requires large were developed and represented in the original
samples from which to generalize, and qualitative study, and supplied a detailed delineation of
research generally comprises small samples. As specific contexts, then a replication of the research
research is conducted in naturalistic settings, the would be possible (see Porte & Richards, 2012,
focus is not on controlling the variables; each for an expanded discussion of how these limita-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

situation is defined as unique and thus is less tions can be addressed).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

amenable to generalization. Therefore, the strength

of qualitative research, according to these research-
The Potential of Replication Studies in
ers, lies in its ability, when conducted properly, to
provide a rich, contextualized understanding of Qualitative Research
human experience through the intensive study of In this section, I propose how useful and
a small number of cases. important it could be for qualitative researchers
On the other hand, some believe that qualita- to consider the notion of replication. Although, as
tive researchers must take very seriously issues of mentioned above, this idea is not foreign to
generalization and replication (Porte, 2013; Talkad positivist/post-positivist qualitative researchers
Sukumar & Metoyer, 2019; Wood et al., 2019). (see Porte, 2013), I wish to suggest that certain
Porte (2013) claimed: “There remains a pressing interpretations of the concept might be useful for
need for qualitative researchers to address the lack constructivist and advocacy/participatory re-
of verification of so many key studies. However, searchers as well. In what follows, I consider
replication is (re)defined for those working in a
four critical aspects, that may assist researchers
qualitative paradigm, the problem has to be ad-
to decide if and when to use replication, and what
dressed” (p. 10). Several considerations have been
type of replication to use: the type of replication,
suggested by those supporting the need to dis-
the researcher’s epistemological stance and
cuss issues of replication and generalization.
approach, the aim of the replication, and the
First, they claim that it is crucial to be able to
nature of the study. Then, I suggest strategies
generalize at a time when the need for the
to assist in facilitating such replication.
applicability of findings to real-life problems
is pressing and when reliance on evidence has
become de rigueur in academia (Eisenhart, 2009; Considerations for the Use of Replication
Hammersley, 2012; Misco, 2007).
In addition, several qualitative researchers Relevant Types of Replication
(especially holding pragmatist epistemologies)
have emphasized practical considerations, claim- It is important to clarify what types of replica-
ing that there must be a way to translate qualita- tion are relevant to qualitative research. Clearly,
tive findings, so that they can be applied exact replication or repetition of a study is neither
practically, or to shape the opinion of decision- possible nor sought. Partial or approximate
makers whose actions affect people’s well-being replication—where the original study’s opera-
(Groleau et al., 2009; Thorne, 2009; Thorne & tions and procedures are adhered to, but some
Darbyshire, 2005). variables are changed to allow for eventual com-
Porte and Richards (2012) claimed that aspects parability between the two studies and their
of qualitative research that have been suggested outcomes—also does not align well with qualita-
by qualitative researchers as being inherently tive research. In contrast to quantitative research,
incompatible with generalization (e.g., LeCompte where an effort is made to control some variables
& Goetz, 1982)—such as the problem of change to see how another specific variable changes or
over time, the “personalistic” nature of qualitative impacts the results, the aim of qualitative replica-
research and ethnography, and methodological tion is not to control variables.
and representational limitations—can be ad- For example, a researcher may wish to investi-
dressed, and that generalizability and replicability gate one study’s research questions among new
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 371

and different samples. Surely, for constructivist A replication is a (novel) qualitative study conducted by
independent researchers replicating one or more aspects
qualitative researchers, the point is not to make (such as study design, research questions, context,
sure that there are resemblances in all aspects of methods, and participants) of an earlier qualitative study
the research, because clearly, different research- and embedding within its findings an interpretive com-
ers have their own sensitivities, interpretive parison with a view to corroborate, elaborate, contrast,
lenses, and styles. Therefore, a belief that even or clarify the elements corresponding to the replicated
aspects with those of the earlier study (p. 2).
partial replication is possible is naïve and unlikely
to occur in qualitative research. As Willig (2019)
claimed: “Whilst the methodological procedures The Researcher’s Epistemological Stance
of a qualitative study can be understood and re-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

enacted by another researcher, their interpreta- The second aspect that researchers interested in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tions of the data are not expected to be the qualitative replication should consider is their
same” (p. 14). epistemological stance and paradigmatic approach
However, I suggest that the third type of repli- to research. Researchers holding a constructivist-
cation, conceptual replication, may have rele- interpretive or advocacy/participatory stance to
vance for qualitative research. In conceptual research may either view replication as foreign
replication, previous research questions are to their paradigm, or as relevant only insofar as
examined using a design that may differ in several transferability is implied. They may also decide to
ways from that of the original study. The re- perform conceptual replication, as its aims and
searchers may use different samples and/or meth- strategies as described above align with epistemol-
ods to collect data or examine the topic of interest ogies of constructed and contextual knowledge.
in a different fashion from the way that it was Positivist and postpositivist qualitative research-
examined in the original study. I use the term ers will have fewer issues with the idea of replica-
“replication logic” to emphasize the need to tion, as they view qualitative research as being one
consider when replication is appropriate for qual- way of locating the essence or truth of a phenome-
itative researchers. non. Therefore, for them, replication is a critical
Replication logic asks: What type of replica- part of validating the research findings. When
tion makes sense for this particular type of quali- conducting replication studies, they try to adhere
tative research, and to what purpose? Originally, to the positivist requirements of replicability using
the term replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989) was different “objective” methods (e.g., numerically
suggested with specific reference to case study coding interview texts, or measuring inter-rater
research, the idea being that each case stands on reliability between judges who analyze data).
its own as an analytic unit and preserves the rich Finally, pragmatic qualitative researchers will
local context, but that cases can be combined in a view the need for replication as context-bound, and
series “sampled for theoretical reasons, such as as defined by the specific study’s needs, and will be
revelation of an unusual phenomenon, replication less intrigued by philosophical claims, as “prag-
of findings from other cases, contrary replication, matism is not committed to any one system of
elimination of alternative explanations, and elab- philosophy and reality” (Creswell, 2003, p. 12).
oration of the emergent theory” (Eisenhardt & Going back to the example mentioned earlier,
Graebner, 2007, p. 27). of studying racist attitudes towards immigrants,
Along these same lines, I adopt the term to positivist/post-positivist qualitative researchers
suggest that single studies can be combined with will document the variables that are prone to
other studies for theoretical reasons, such as the change between the original study and the repli-
revelation of an unusual phenomenon or an elab- cation study (such as the political context, geo-
oration of an emergent theory. As such, the focus graphical location, etc.), but they will try to
shifts away from using replication as a way to control them and to create a sample, procedure,
validate the original study findings and towards a and analytic strategies as similar as possible to
way of using, extending, and/or applying the those used in the original study. By contrast,
original study’s findings in other contexts. constructivist and advocacy/participatory quali-
Recently, Talkad Sukumar and Metoyer (2019) tative researchers, when conducting a conceptual
suggested a definition for qualitative replication, replication, may focus on one aspect of the origi-
which aligns with my definition of conceptual nal study, such as the notion of racist attitudes, but
replication: conduct the new study in a context in which all of
 372 TUVAL-MASHIACH

the other aspects differ from those of the original findings of the original study, whether they repeat
study. Or they may conduct their conceptual these findings or not, because they can uncover
replication study on anti-racist attitudes, or (if the limits of the findings, or the variations of these
their paradigmatic stance is advocacy/participa- findings in other samples or populations. There-
tory) they may study institutionalized racist fore, qualitative replications are evaluated on the
norms. Pragmatic qualitative researchers will basis of their relevance to the original study, not
assess the applied need for replicating the study, on the basis of their success in repeating findings.
and if there is a pragmatic justification, they may For example, researchers might conduct a con-
decide which aspects of the original study to ceptual replication following a study that
replicate, according to their specific prag- explored ambiguous loss (a loss that occurs with-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

matic needs. out closure or clear understanding, see Boss,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

A related consideration is the need to refer to 2007) in families where fathers, who are present
the fit between the original and the new research- in the family (i.e., at home), suffer from military-
ers’ epistemological stance. Because each epis- related posttraumatic stress disorder. The new
temology leads to different methodologies study’s researchers decide to explore the experi-
used—including strategies for data collection, ence of ambiguous loss in families where fathers
interpretive frameworks, and the presentation are hospitalized for long periods, for medical
of findings—it seems that the better the fit, the reasons, and are, therefore, away from their fami-
more aspects of the study that can be replicated. lies. In this example, although the loss circum-
Importantly, my view is that even when there is a stances are different, and in some ways opposite
discrepancy between the epistemologies of the (fathers’ physical as opposed to psychological
two researchers, a conceptual replication which absence), the researchers can still consider their
borrows only the theoretical aspect of the study study a replication, because they have extended
(e.g., the topic studied) is still possible, but is the conceptual boundaries of the notion of ambig-
much more limited in scope. uous loss. Such an exploration may lead to a better
understanding of different types of loss and the
Aim of Replication impact of these types of loss on family members
in different contexts and societies.
Another consideration is: What is the aim of the
replication for the specific study? If the replica- The Nature of the Study
tion study aims only to validate the original study,
or evaluate its findings, and therefore, replication The last aspect that researchers should consider
is perceived as successful only when the new is the nature of the study, and its claims of
study confirms the original study’s findings, then generalizability. When a study explores a very
such an understanding of replication is indeed singular or rare phenomenon (e.g., near death
foreign to qualitative research. The notion of experiences), or when the method used is indi-
replication that I suggest for qualitative research vidualized (such as autoethnography), generaliz-
is not one that is meant to evaluate the rigor of the ability is usually not sought, and therefore,
original study, but to broaden the perspective of replication is less relevant than when the phe-
the findings to facilitate an accumulation of nomenon of interest is common or universal
knowledge. (e.g., loss of a loved one, motherhood) and
Therefore, such a replication is not defined as when the methods of the original study can
successful or unsuccessful on the basis of its be explicitly described. In this case, other re-
converging results; furthermore, there is no point searchers who wish to extend the original
in measuring its success, as no effort is made to research findings might find Talkad Sukumar
arrive at one correct result. This notion stands in and Metoyer’s (2019) definition mentioned
stark contrast to the way that replication is usually above useful in considering how and what
defined in positivist research, where a failure to they wish to replicate.
confirm the original study’s findings renders the
replication unsuccessful and raises questions Strategies
about the value of the original study’s methods
or findings. On the contrary, qualitative replica- In this last section, I refer to two strategies that
tions tell us something important about the are important when planning or considering a
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 373

qualitative replication study. For many years, and differences between the different contexts of
even if researchers wanted to connect their study each study, so that in turn they can decide on the
to a previous study on the same topic in a way that nature of their replication (and situate their study).
would replicate or extend the knowledge about Levitt et al. (2018) suggested several ways in
the phenomenon, doing so was difficult in practi- which qualitative researchers could situate their
cal terms. This difficulty stemmed from a lack of research. First, researchers should describe their
clear guidelines as to how the process and meth- relationship to the study topic, to their partici-
ods of qualitative research should be reported pants, and to related ideological commitments.
when preparing for publication. Second, the contextual circumstances in which a
Challenges for qualitative researchers wishing phenomenon is being studied are important to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

to publish their papers thus emerged and resulted detail. Although some contextual aspects are
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

in a broad range of researchers’ choices ranging straightforward and are part of the information
from short and idiosyncratic descriptions to thor- provided in any paper (e.g., age, data sources,
ough and detailed descriptions of all methodo- gender of participants, country where the study is
logical aspects of the study (Levitt et al., 2017). conducted, year when it is conducted), there are
Suggestions for guidelines have been proposed by other more subtle contextual aspects that must be
several authors (e.g., Elliott et al., 1999; Morrow, disclosed. If they are not, then the readers cannot
2005; Tracy, 2010; Wertz et al., 2011). Recently, know they are missing, and they are unable to
an effort to systemize the reporting standards of consider their relevance for any future research.
qualitative research led by Levitt et al. (2018) For example, researchers studying mothers’
resulted in a set of recommendations for reporting experiences in the face of their sons’ enlistment
standards that could advance qualitative research. to combat units must contextualize their study
The systematization of communicating meth- (i.e., was it conducted during wartime or during
odology and design paves the way for related geo-political quiet?) in order for readers to prop-
future studies. In addition to the general consen- erly comprehend the findings. Another example
sus on what should be reported and how to do so, I is provided by Levitt et al. (2018) about the need
wish to suggest two additional aspects that to describe social dynamics and power relations,
authors can refer to in order to reinforce the especially when the phenomenon under investi-
possibility of replication by other researchers. gation is related to social dynamics, such as the
The first one refers to context, and the second study of marginalized groups.
to assuring transparency. These considerations imply that, first, there
cannot be an a-priori list of contextual items to
Contextualizing include in one’s contextualization, as each study
is uniquely situated within specific contexts. Sec-
Every study is conducted in a specific context, ond, contextualization refers to more than just a
or more precisely, in a multiplicity of contexts: It listing of the facets or aspects that potentially
takes place at a certain time, in a certain society or shaped the research process or its findings.
culture, with a certain sample, and is conducted Rather, it requires that the researcher describes
by specific researchers and interviewers. All these in what ways these aspects might have affected
contexts exist in the background of the study and the research, its procedures, the interpretation and
create the unique circumstances in which the the analysis, and the reported findings. Such a
research takes place and in which the findings detailed situatedness of the study is related to the
are crafted and described. Although it is virtually second strategy, that of ensuring transparency.
impossible to refer to all contexts (Zilber et al.,
2008), it is nevertheless important to contextual- Ensuring Transparency
ize one’s study in the central relevant contexts in
which it occurs. Transparency of the research process im-
Importantly, the task of contextualization is plies that:
required from both the original study’s
researcher, and the one who later conducts the Researchers must disclose all relevant research pro-
cesses via an honest detailing of every aspect of the
replication. When both researchers situate their data collection process and the rules used to analyze
studies, it makes it easier for readers as well as data, by presenting excerpts of the textual data in which
future researchers to appreciate the similarities the readers can themselves discern the patterns identified
 374 TUVAL-MASHIACH

by the analysis, and/or by making a detailed record of How did the researcher move from the raw texts
the data available to other analysts (Tuval-Mashiach,
to the written analysis? How were conclusions
2017, p. 128).
arrived at? “Why” questions refer to the rationale
Transparency serves several purposes, the underlying certain aspects of the research, and
main one of which is enhancing the trustworthi- deal with efforts to make reflexively transparent
ness of a study, as readers are free to follow the the reasons and justifications for choices made
research and the factors that were taken into throughout the course of the research, and reflec-
consideration and evaluate their adequateness tions about the researcher’s involvement and
(Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Hiles, 2008; Hiles & personal relationship with the research questions
Čermak, 2007; Yardley, 2000). However, transpar- and materials. Example questions include: Why
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ency allows for more than ensuring the rigor of a was the theoretical approach chosen for the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

study. It enables the reader to extend or replicate research? Why was a specific methodology
aspects of the study in their own future studies. At adopted? These three questions pertain to all
its core is the assumption, shared by most qualita- stages of the research, including planning, data
tive approaches to inquiry, that researchers are collection, analysis, and the writing of the final
responsible for enabling their readers to follow report.
the research process from as early as its inception, To summarize this section, I wish to emphasize
and all the way through the data collection and data that taking into account both context and trans-
analysis. parency is the responsibility, first and foremost, of
Contextualization is, therefore, part and parcel the researcher who conducts the (original) study.
of transparency, as transparency addresses not Namely, although it is always left for the readers
only questions of “in what contexts is the present to decide whether the study they have read is
study embedded” but also refers to the why and potentially transferable to their own specific
how of the research. Although transparency is research contexts, and if replication is appropri-
necessary in all kinds of research, and is not ate, this decision is also nevertheless contingent
unique to qualitative research, it is especially on the transparency and clarity of the data pro-
crucial for qualitative researchers. Namely, the vided by the original study researchers. Readers
dynamic and situated nature of qualitative require this information to decide whether and
research makes each case of qualitative research how to replicate aspects of the study.
a singular process and requires researchers to craft
their own methods or make changes in accor- Summary
dance with the circumstances.
Although a thorough description of the steps I opened my discussion by reviewing the con-
required for researchers to be transparent about cept of replication and its status in positivist
their research lies beyond the scope of this paper, I research, aiming to demonstrate that even where
briefly sketch a model designed to enhance trans- replication exists as a necessary criterion in the
parency (see Hiles & Čermak, 2007; Levitt et al., establishment of the quality and reliability of a
2017; Tong et al., 2012; Tuval-Mashiach, 2017, study, it is far from being simple or even possible
for a comprehensive discussion of transparency). to achieve. The replication crisis in the field of
This model (Tuval-Mashiach, 2017) suggests psychology, following the failure in 2015 to
that to improve transparency, researchers must replicate a large body of research, has raised
address three central questions: what they did, awareness of the complexity of the concept and
how they did it, and why they did it. “What” led researchers to propose a broader perspective
questions refer to describing what was included in and additional types of replication, including the
the study, for example its paradigmatic stance, the understanding that replication should not be
approach used, methods for data collection and viewed through the prism of its outcome, but
analysis, and the sequence of stages. “How” rather via its theoretical commitment. I have
questions refer to the efforts made by researchers suggested that such notions of replication pave
to disclose aspects of the research process and the way for a potential application of replication
how these aspects developed. Example questions in qualitative research.
might be: How did the analysis develop? What In discussing the potential uses of replication
were the stages of the analysis? How was the for qualitative researchers, I have suggested see-
material sorted and arranged to be presented? ing conceptual replication as being compatible
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 375

with qualitative research and reviewed relevant Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The
concepts within the qualitative literature. Finally, Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage
I have described the considerations that research- Publications.
ers must be cognizant of regarding the circum- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case
stances in which replication becomes relevant, study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989
and the strategies that researchers should employ .4308385
enable other researchers to replicate or extend a Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory
prior study. building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.
To conclude, I suggest that using replication in Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
qualitative research is highly relevant and important https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

for the flourishing of qualitative research, as it can Eisenhart, M. (2009). Generalization from qualitative
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

allow for both the accumulation of knowledge, as inquiry. In K. Ercikan & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Gen-
well as for promoting communication with positiv- eralizing from educational research (pp. 51–66).
ist researchers, regarding what can and should be Routledge.
replicated, and how. Examining concepts that have Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999).
Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative
been traditionally identified with one paradigm and research studies in psychology and related fields.
exploring their potential value for the other para- British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 215–
digm may benefit us all as researchers. 229. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466599162782
Freese, J., & Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in social
science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 147–
References 165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-
053450
Ali, A. M., & Yusof, H. (2011). Quality in qualitative Gergen, K. J. (2014). Pursuing excellence in qualita-
studies: The case of validity, reliability and generaliz- tive inquiry. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 49–60.
ability. Issues in Social and Environmental Account- https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000002
ing, 5(1), 25–64. https://doi.org/10.22164/isea.v5i1.59 Groleau, D., Zelkowitz, P., & Cabral, I. E. (2009).
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for Enhancing generalizability: Moving from an inti-
assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. mate to a political voice. Qualitative Health
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Research, 19(3), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 485–499). Sage 1049732308329851
Publications. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trust-
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded worthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational
theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of Communication and Technology, 29(2), Article
Agribusiness, 23(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.22004/ 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
ag.econ.59612 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemolog-
Boss, P. (2007). Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges ical and methodological bases of naturalistic
for scholars and practitioners. Family Relations, inquiry. Educational Communication and Tech-
56(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729 nology, 30(4), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/
.2007.00444.x BF02765185
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing
policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
osobl/9780199841608.001.0001 research (pp. 105–117). Sage Publications.
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnog-
research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435–436. https:// raphy? Routledge.
www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/trustworthiness- Hammersley, M. (2012). Qualitative causal analysis:
qualitative-research/docview/1849700459/se-2? Grounded theorizing and the qualitative survey. In
accountid=14483 B. Cooper, J. Glaesser, R. Gomm, & M. Hammersley
Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the (Eds.), Challenging the qualitative-quantitative
scientific superiority of conceptual replications for divide (pp. 116–140). Continuum.
scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Hiles, D. R. (2008). Transparency. In L. M. Givens
Psychology, 66, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.je (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative
sp.2015.10.002 research (pp. 890–892). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Hiles, D. R., & Čermak, I. (2007, July 3–6). Qualita-
quantitative and mixed method approaches (2nd tive research: Transparency and narrative oriented
ed.). Sage Publications. inquiry [Paper presentation]. 10th European
 376 TUVAL-MASHIACH

Congress of Psychology, Prague, Czech Republic. Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens,
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? A. C. J. W. (2007). Most published research find-
doi=10.1.1.492.634&rep=rep1&type=pdf ings are false-but a little replication goes a long way.
Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research PLOS Medicine, 4(2), Article e28. https://doi.org/10
for nurses (pp. 115–129). Blackwell Science. .1371/journal.pmed.0040028
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in
assessment of trustworthiness. The American Jour- qualitative research in counseling psychology.
nal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214 260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., &
reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establish-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60. ing reliability and validity in qualitative research.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031 International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2),

Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202
D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2020). What is
Journal article reporting standards for qualitative replication? PLOS Biology, 18(3), Article e3000691.
primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed meth- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691
ods research in psychology: The APA Publications Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the
and Communications Board task force report. reproducibility of psychological science. Science,
American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https:// 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10
doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151 .1126/science.aac4716
Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. (2012). Editors’
S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations introduction to the special section on replicability
for designing and reviewing qualitative research in in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?
psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–
Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/ 530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253
10.1037/qup0000082 Payne, G., & Williams, M. (2005). Generalization in
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in educa- qualitative research. Sociology, 39(2), 295–314.
tion: A user’s guide. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038505050540
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychology’s replication crisis Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in
and the grant culture: Righting the ship. Perspectives quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and
on Psychological Science, 12(4), 660–664. https:// strategies. International Journal of Nursing Stud-
doi.org/10.1177/1745691616687745 ies, 47(11), 1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic .ijnurstu.2010.06.004
inquiry. Sage Publications. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2017). Toward a more counseling psychology: A primer on research para-
perfect psychology: Improving trust, accuracy, and digms and philosophy of science. Journal of
transparency in research. American Psychological Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136. https://
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000033-000 doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Maxwell, J. A. (2021). Why qualitative methods are Porte, G. (2013). Who needs replication? CALICO
necessary for generalization. Qualitative Psy- Journal, 30(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj
chology, 8(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/ .30.1.10-15
qup0000173 Porte, G., & Richards, K. (2012). Focus article: Rep-
Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization lication in second language writing research. Jour-
in and form qualitative analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), nal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 284–293.
The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.002
(pp. 540–553). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/ Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020).
10.4135/9781446282243.n37 Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: De-
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). coupling transparency from replication in establish-
Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? ing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative
What does “failure to replicate” really mean? Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10
American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498. https:// .1177/0001839219887663
doi.org/10.1037/a0039400 Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in
Misco, T. (2007). The frustrations of reader generaliz- qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science,
ability and grounded theory: Alternative considera- 8(3), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-1986
tions for transferability. Journal of Research 04000-00005
Practice, 3(1), Article M10. http://jrp.icaap.org/ Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology,
index.php/jrp/article/view/45/77 science, and knowledge construction: Broadening
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 377

perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/
Review of Psychology, 69(1), 487–510. https:// 10.1177/1077800410383121
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845 Trafimow, D. (2020). Conceptual replications in dif-
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. ferent frames. Journal of Theoretical and Philo-
(2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed sophical Psychology, 40(1), 62–64. https://doi.org/
flexibility in data collection and analysis allows 10.1037/teo0000144
presenting anything as significant. Psychological Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2017). Raising the curtain: The
Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10 importance of transparency in qualitative research.
.1177/0956797611417632 Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 126–138. https://
Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. doi.org/10.1037/qup0000062
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76–80. Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755 R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Spiers, J., Morse, J. M., Olson, K., Mayan, M., & ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomeno-
Barrett, M. (2018). Reflection/commentary on a past logical psychology, grounded theory, discourse
article:“Verification strategies for establishing reliabil- analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry.
ity and validity in qualitative research.” International Guilford Press.
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–2. https:// Wiggins, B. J., & Christopherson, C. D. (2019). The
doi.org/10.1177/1609406918788237 replication crisis in psychology: An overview for
Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis theoretical and philosophical psychology. Journal of
and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39(4),
Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/ 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000137
10.1177/1745691613514450 Willig, C. (2017). Interpretation in qualitative
Tackett, J. L., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Introduction to research. In C. Willg & W. Stainton-Rogers
the special section on increasing replicability, trans- (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research
parency, and openness in clinical psychology. Jour- in psychology (pp. 274–288). Sage publications.
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 487–492. Willig, C. (2019). What can qualitative psychology
https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000455 contribute to psychological knowledge? Psycholog-
Talkad Sukumar, P., & Metoyer, R. (2019, February ical Methods, 24(6), 796–804. https://doi.org/10
2). Replication and transparency of qualitative .1037/met0000218
research from a constructivist perspective. https:// Wood, B. D., Mutemi, A., & Gaarder, M. M. (2019).
doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6efvp Demand driven replication research: An overview
Thorne, S. (2009). The role of qualitative research of financial services for the poor replication
within an evidence-based context: Can metasynth- research. Journal of Development Effectiveness,
esis be the answer? International Journal of Nurs- 11(4), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342
ing Studies, 46(4), 569–575. https://doi.org/10 .2019.1696871
.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.001 Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health
Thorne, S., & Darbyshire, P. (2005). Land mines in the research. Psychology & Health, 15(2), 215–228.
field: A modest proposal for improving the craft of https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440008400302
qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Zilber, T. B., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Lieblich, A.
Research, 15(8), 1105–1113. https://doi.org/10 (2008). The embedded narrative: Navigating through
.1177/1049732305278502 multiple contexts. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(6),
Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & 1047–1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800408
Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in report- 321616
ing the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), Arti-
cle 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 Received November 23, 2020
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big- Revision received September 2, 2021
tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Accepted September 8, 2021 ▪