Qualitative research critique: practice and ethics

Read the third requirement precisely, because it is narrower than it looks. You are asked to address the ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study — how the researchers treated their participants — not to discuss nursing ethics, and not to discuss the ethics of the clinical problem. That means informed consent and how it was obtained, ethics committee or institutional review board approval, confidentiality and how identifiable qualitative data was protected, whether participants were in a dependent relationship with the researcher, whether the interview topic risked distress and what was relationship with the researcher, whether the topic risked distress, and whether findings were returned to participants. Qualitative work unit even after names are removed, and a researcher who is also a colleague changes what a participant feels able to say. If the paper reports approval and nothing else, say so — a thin ethics section is a finding, if you say what is missing.

The first two requirements are more familiar but still have traps. The summary must cover the research question, the design and its qualitative tradition, the sampling and setting, how data was collected and analysed, and the findings — in your own words, at the length 1,050 words allows, which is not much once three requirements share it. The application requirement asks how the findings might be used in nursing practice, and the honest answer for most qualitative work is that it changes understanding rather than protocol: it tells you what patients experience, which should inform how you assess and communicate, not which drug you give. Say that explicitly rather than overclaiming a practice change the design cannot support. Use the Research Critique Guidelines headings the assignment names, since the rubric follows them, and a critique organised any other way makes the marker hunt for the requirement they are trying to award.