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
been calling for promoting methodological
integrity (Levitt et al., 2017, 2018). Although
the common denominator for many qualitative
researchers has been their objection to criteria
proposed quantitative researchers (Spiers et al.,
2018), it has been suggested that it is the wealth of
qualitative approaches and methodologies that
have led each approach to develop its own param-
eters for assessing the quality of research, leading
to confusion and ambiguity concerning what
constitutes rigor in qualitative research. Spiers
et al. (2018) claimed that over time a shift
occurred from a conceptualization of rigor as
an integral process that the researcher defines
Rivka Tuval-Mashiach https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7741-1807
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Rivka Tuval-Mashiach, Department of Psychology,
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel. Email:
tuvalmr@gmail.com
365
to criteria that are used by the readers. To support
their claim, these authors pointed out that the
paper “Verification strategies for establishing
reliability and validity in qualitative research”
(Morse et al., 2002) became, over the years, one
of the most downloaded and cited papers. Indeed,
whether for reasons of fostering a common lan-
guage among qualitative researchers, or encour-
aging communication between qualitative and
quantitative researchers, the literature on qual-
itative methods and methodologies has been
growing rapidly. This bulk of material has
strengthened the systematization of methods
and the rigor of qualitative research.
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
this special issue (see Levitt, 2021 and Motulsky,
2021), which are part of the qualitative methods
lexicon and are commonly used by qualitative
researchers, replication has neither been strived
for nor encouraged by qualitative researchers and
 366 TUVAL-MASHIACH
has in fact been perceived as antithetical to the
foundational assumptions of qualitative research.
I wish to problematize assumptions regarding
replication by first discussing its meaning and
its applicability in positivist and post-positivist
research, and then describe opportunities for its
use by qualitative researchers, as well as what
such researchers must take into account when
considering its use.
Before I turn to the issue at the heart of this paper,
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
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
paradigmatic bases of quantitative and qualitative
research. There are many taxonomies for describing
research paradigms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011;
Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Ponterotto, 2005). I rely
on the framework suggested by Creswell (2003), as
it includes the pragmatist paradigm, which is rele-
vant to my discussion of replication, and is lacking
from other schemes (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Creswell’s framework includes four paradigms:
positivism/post-positivism, constructivism, advo-
cacy/participatory (in other frameworks referred
to as critical/ideological), and pragmatism.
Positivism assumes that the studied phenome-
non is “real,” and exists independently of the
researchers and their theories/practices and other
contextual aspects. In this regard, scientists are
called on to “discover and disseminate truth”
(Simmons et al., 2011, p. 1365). Postpositivism
holds that one can never fully capture a “true”
reality. Objectivity as viewed by this approach is
an ideal to which the researcher strives. Despite
this difference between post-positivism and posi-
tivism, Creswell groups them together as one
paradigm, because both paradigms aim to
explain, predict, and control the studied phenom-
ena, and both emphasize cause–effect linkages of
phenomena that can be generalized. Positivism
and post-positivism serve as the primary foun-
dation and anchor for quantitative research
(Ponterotto, 2005).
Two other paradigms, constructivism and advo-
cacy/participatory, which serve as the foundation
of qualitative research, hold a very different
approach towards the “truth” and reality. Both
take a relativist stance towards knowledge and
perceive reality as a construction rather than as
external to the knowers (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).1
One implication of constructivist-interpretive and
advocacy/participatory perceptions of reality is
that interpretation—perceived as being the main
tool explaining a phenomenon—is unavoidable.
Interpretation by its nature is always subjective,
as it is based on one’s prior knowledge, experience,
assumptions, philosophical and paradigmatic stance,
and personal sensitivities (Willig, 2017).
Although they share many similarities in their
views on truth, interpretation, and researcher
subjectivity, researchers who subscribe to
the advocacy/participatory approach view
human experience as always mediated by
power relations, take a more active stance
towards social change and emancipation,
and view the researcher as a proactive agent
for such changes (Creswell, 2003). Finally,
pragmatism concerns itself with finding solu-
tions to problems, rather than with advocating
adherence to any one philosophical system.
Truth, according to this approach, is defined as
“what works at the time” (Creswell, 2003,
p. 12), and therefore, a pluralistic approach
to research methods is encouraged. This para-
digm serves as the foundation for mixed-
methods research.
What Is Replication?
One of the basic tenets of the positivist/post-
positivist scientific method is that the phenome-
non in question should be stable and consistent.
Therefore, for quantitative science, the credibility
of scientific claims depends on the evidence of
their replicability (Freese & Peterson, 2017;
Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). Successful rep-
lication is considered a hallmark of good science
(Moonesinghe et al., 2007; Simons, 2014) as
replicating a study strengthens the understanding
that an identified pattern or a finding is robust,
rather than being an error or an artifact. In this
regard, the replicability of a study serves two
purposes. First, it adds to the study’s validity,
because it implies that it can be trusted by other
researchers. Second, replication allows for
increased knowledge in the relevant field, as it
is through the accumulation of studies examining
similar phenomena that a body of knowledge
is established (Nosek & Errington, 2020).
1
Importantly, not all qualitative approaches accept the
dichotomy between objectivist-positivist and constructed
perspectives of reality. Hermeneutic and existential ap-
proaches take a midway approach, that acknowledges the
existence of an independent reality, but denies that there can
be direct access to that reality, emphasizing instead represen-
tation and interpretation of social phenomena (Hammersley,
1992).
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Therefore, from a positivist standpoint, it is ex-
pected and required that the findings of studies be
successfully replicated. This point is crucial. The
quality (or success) of replication is defined by its
results: That is, only if the replication ends with
findings similar to those found in the original
study is the original study considered robust and
trustworthy.
However, despite being central and significant
in scientific positivist and post-positivist tradi-
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-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tion. The dictionary defines replication as “the act
of making or doing something again in exactly the
same way,” implying that the two items or cases
are identical and that sameness between the two is
expected (Cambridge Dictionary). Similarly,
Porte (2013) claimed that, “In the context of
testing hypotheses through empirical research,
replication requires “experiments” to be repeated
in such a way that we can be reasonably certain
that the results of two experiments are compara-
ble and, therefore, they are measuring the same
phenomenon” (Porte, 2013, p. 10). Others, how-
ever, have claimed that defining replication as a
strict repetition of a study is erroneous (Nosek &
Errington, 2020).
Several related concepts have been suggested.
Exact replication refers to a strict replication of
the original study’s procedures, conducted with
the same subjects who participated in the original
study. This type of replication is technically
impossible both, because there are unavoidable
differences between the conditions of the two
studies, as well as because in the replication,
the subjects are already familiar with the study’s
procedures, as they participated in the first study
(Crandall & Sherman, 2016). Another type of
replication suggested is approximate/partial rep-
lication, in which the original study’s operations
and procedures are adhered to but some variables
are changed to allow for eventual comparability
between the two studies and their outcomes
(Porte & Richards, 2012). Conceptual replica-
tion aims to test previous hypotheses using a
different experimental design. The researchers
may use different methods to collect the data or
operationalize variables differently from how
they did so in the original study (Crandall &
Sherman, 2016; Trafimow, 2020; Wiggins &
Chrisopherson, 2019).
For example, researchers may wish to replicate
a study whose topic of investigation was envy.
Although they may accept the original study’s
367
definition of the envy “phenomenon,” they might
choose different strategies to collect data (e.g.,
interviews instead of an experiment, or sampling
adults instead of adolescents).
The Replication Crisis
Despite the critical role of replication in posi-
tivist research, it turns out that replication is not so
easy to perform in psychology research. First, for
a variety of reasons, replication studies are much
less frequent than original studies are (see, e.g.,
Open Science Collaboration, 2015, for a discus-
sion of several factors). Furthermore, in recent
years, at a time when replication studies are being
seen much more commonly in psychology
research, it has become clear that replicating a
study is much less successful than previously
assumed. In 2015, a large replication project
in the field of psychology (Open Science
Collaboration, 2015) took place. A large-scale,
collaborative effort to obtain an initial estimate
of the reproducibility of psychological science
was conducted. The researchers tried to repli-
cate 100 results that were systematically sam-
pled from three top-tier psychology journals.
Their findings showed that only 36% of the
replication efforts yielded significant findings,
and that effect sizes in the replication studies
were about half the size of those in the original
studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).
These findings, together with related criticism
of psychology researchers’ practices (especially
the inadequate use of statistical methods, see
Simmons et al., 2011), led to what has been
termed “the replication crisis” (Lilienfeld,
2017; Maxwell et al., 2015; Shrout & Rodgers,
2018). Interestingly, the debates within the posi-
tivist psychology world resulted in various and, at
times, opposing recommendations. Some re-
searchers emphasized the need to do a more
rigorous research and to be transparent about
methods and data (Makel & Plucker, 2017;
Tackett & Miller, 2019), whereas others sug-
gested focusing on partial types of replication,
and abandoning the idea of exact replication,
which in any event was for them irrelevant for
the kinds of social phenomena that are studied
by psychologists (Crandall & Sherman, 2016;
Stroebe & Strack, 2014). Other researchers
claimed that psychological research should
focus on overall patterns of replication results
from multiple studies rather than single efforts
 368 TUVAL-MASHIACH
to replicate a finding (Maxwell et al., 2015;
Shrout & Rodgers, 2018).
Finally, a recent paper by Nosek and Errington
(2020) criticized the distinctions drawn by others
between types of replication (such as direct vs.
conceptual), claiming that “Procedural defini-
tions of replication are masks for underdeveloped
theoretical expectations” (p. 2). These authors
offer a new definition for replication, representing
a dramatic shift from previous definitions and
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-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cation is “a study for which any outcome would
be considered diagnostic evidence about a claim
from prior research. This definition reduces
emphasis on operational characteristics of the
study and increases emphasis on the interpreta-
tion of possible outcomes” (Nosek & Errington,
2020, p. 2).
This novel definition assumes that all findings
of a replication study when rigorously conducted
are valid or successful, because any outcome of a
replication adds to the scientific knowledge in one
way or another. The aforementioned literature on
replication suggests that notions of replication in
quantitative research have changed tremendously
in recent years and have led to a broader under-
standing and implementation of replication. In
what follows, I discuss the relevance and poten-
tial of replication for qualitative researchers,
against the backdrop of these updated and broader
notions.
Qualitative Research and Replicability
Paradigmatically, the concept of replicability is
foreign to most qualitative approaches, on several
grounds. First, as I have described above, given
that interpretation serves as the main tool in
qualitative research, and is always subjective,
there is no point in trying to replicate a study.
Willig (2019) claimed: “Unlike quantitative
research, qualitative research does not aim for
replicability of its findings. Qualitative research-
ers accept that qualitative analysis is inevitably
informed by the researcher’s stance and their
approach to interpretation” (p. 4). Furthermore,
the perception of reality as dynamic and ever-
changing, and as constantly influenced by social
forces and circumstances, especially regarding
social phenomena, implies that every finding is
expected to change and is, therefore, unreprodu-
cible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Gergen, 2014;
LeCompte & Goetz, 1982).
For example, a number of factors—including
education, political context, geographical loca-
tion, time of the study, and immigration rates—
would play a role in the existence of racist
attitudes towards immigrants. Therefore, it would
be unreasonable to expect that the findings ob-
tained in the U.S. in the 1960s in a study among
college students in the Midwest would be the
same if the study was conducted today, or in
another country, among a different population, or
in a state or country where the prevalence of
immigrants is high. This example makes emi-
nently clear why it would be odd to expect
replication (at least an exact one).
Finally, qualitative researchers often aim to
study exceptional phenomena, where circum-
stances are singular, to learn about individuals
with particularly unique attributes or life experi-
ences (Sandelowski, 1986). Such is the case with
biographical studies, or case study research,
where the focus is on individuals. In such cases,
replication, as well as generalization, is less rele-
vant (Pratt et al., 2020). To summarize this sec-
tion, replication was not—and still is not—an end
to which most qualitative researchers strive.
Related Concepts in Qualitative Literature
Qualitative researchers are cognizant of the
need for evaluating a study’s quality and credi-
bility. Although the criteria used by positivist
researchers do not align with the paradigmatic
assumptions of qualitative researchers, and
despite the inherent diversity in different qualita-
tive approaches, it has nevertheless been sug-
gested that establishing criteria to ensure rigor
and credibility for specific studies is necessary.
Guba and Lincoln (1982) were the first to offer a
set of criteria, equivalent to the parameters used in
the quantitative scientific world, which allow for
the quality of qualitative research to be evaluated
on its own terms. Relevant to this discussion on
the applicability of research are the concepts of
transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Transferability is the degree to which the
results of qualitative research can be transferred
to other contexts or settings conducted among
other respondents (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The
extent of similarity between the two contexts
suggests the likelihood of transferability. The
researcher facilitates the potential user’s judg-
ment of transferability by providing detailed de-
scriptions. Transferability has been suggested to
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
be the equivalent of reliability, which is a criterion
used by quantitative researchers and concerns
itself mainly with the replicability of research
findings and the degree to which findings are
stable and not artifacts (Holloway & Wheeler,
1996; Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014). The more
successful that replications are in repeating a
study the better the study’s reliability. Despite
the association between transferability and repli-
cation, they are distinct, as transferability allows
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
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
from the original study to the new settings, while
replication requires that the new study’s
researcher repeat an aspect (or aspects) of the
original study. Therefore, transferability is more
related to questions of generalizability, namely,
the ability to generalize from the findings to larger
populations (Ali & Yusof, 2011).
Indeed, Maxwell (2021) differentiates between
internal and external generalization: The first
refers to generalizing within the setting, group,
or population studied to persons, events, and
activities that are not directly represented in the
data collected, and the latter refers to generalizing
beyond the person(s) and study circumstances to
other persons, settings, cases, or times. According
to Maxwell’s definition, external generalization is
inherently linked with the idea of transferability.
Dependability is defined as the stability of
findings over time (Bitsch, 2005). Procedures
to promote dependability include maintaining
an audit trail of process logs and holding peer-
debriefings with colleagues (Connelly, 2016).
Krefting (1991) explained that due to the flexible
nature of qualitative research, consistency of
findings—an assumption in quantitative research
necessary for conducting a replicative study—
cannot be expected. Instead, variability is the
norm in qualitative research:
The key to qualitative work is to learn from the in-
formants rather than control for them. Moreover, instru-
ments that are assessed for consistency in qualitative
research are the researcher and the informants, both of
whom vary greatly within the research project. Qualita-
tive research emphasizes the uniqueness of the human
situation, so that variation in experience rather than
identical repetition is sought (Krefting, 1991, p. 216).
Therefore, dependability implies trackable
variability—that is, variability that the researcher
is able to ascribe to identified sources. In regard to
replication, dependability is related to the possi-
bility of using findings from one study in another,
but instead of relying on consistency, the new
369
study’s researcher aims to follow the decision
trail used by the original’s study investigator
(Sandelowski, 1986).
Confirmability is defined as the degree to
which the findings of the study can be confirmed
by other researchers. Confirmability concerns
itself with ensuring that the interpretation of
the findings is not an artifact of the inquirer’s
imagination, but is clearly derived from and
embedded in the data. Confirmability is about
securing the intersubjectivity of the data. Like
dependability, confirmability also makes possi-
ble the application of research findings to other
contexts (Connelly, 2016).
All of these criteria establish the “trustworthi-
ness” and credibility of the research, as they are
concerned with strategies to assure that the study
can be trusted and that its findings are valid. As
described above, replication can serve two related
but different purposes. One is to confirm the
original study’s quality (namely, focusing on
its reliability, or trustworthiness) and the other
is to enable the extrapolation of findings to other
contexts and populations (namely, related to is-
sues of generalization and transferability).
In what follows, I focus on the second
purpose—that is, extending and extrapolating a
study’s findings to other contexts and popula-
tions. This issue is strongly related to the issue of
generalization, which is defined as “an act of
reasoning that involves drawing broad inferences
from particular observations” (Polit & Beck,
2010, p. 1253) and is related to the study’s exter-
nal validity. The main question underlying the
issue of generalization is: Of what relevance are
one study’s findings for other situations or popu-
lations? Or, in the words of Cartwright and Hardie
(2012) in their discussion on similarity between
studies: “The key question is how good a job this
advice [similarity] does in getting you from ‘it
worked there’ to ‘it will work here” (p. 46). Much
like replication, the concept of generalization has
historically been perceived as irrelevant and impos-
sible in qualitative research and has been rejected
by most qualitative researchers (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Payne & Williams, 2005; Porte & Richards,
2012; Sandelowski, 1986).
However, in recent years, controversy has
grown around the question of the need for repli-
cation and generalization, with new voices
emphasizing the importance of these concepts
for qualitative research (see a recent volume of
the journal Qualitative Psychology devoted to
 370 TUVAL-MASHIACH
generalization in qualitative research). Those
who dismiss the relevance of generalizability
claim that knowledge is always situational and
local (Guba, 1981; LeCompte & Goetz, 1982;
Lichtman, 2006; Ponterotto, 2005; Wertz et al.,
2011). In addition, generalization requires large
samples from which to generalize, and qualitative
research generally comprises small samples. As
research is conducted in naturalistic settings, the
focus is not on controlling the variables; each
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
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-
ers, lies in its ability, when conducted properly, to
provide a rich, contextualized understanding of
human experience through the intensive study of
a small number of cases.
On the other hand, some believe that qualita-
tive researchers must take very seriously issues of
generalization and replication (Porte, 2013; Talkad
Sukumar & Metoyer, 2019; Wood et al., 2019).
Porte (2013) claimed: “There remains a pressing
need for qualitative researchers to address the lack
of verification of so many key studies. However,
replication is (re)defined for those working in a
qualitative paradigm, the problem has to be ad-
dressed” (p. 10). Several considerations have been
suggested by those supporting the need to dis-
cuss issues of replication and generalization.
First, they claim that it is crucial to be able to
generalize at a time when the need for the
applicability of findings to real-life problems
is pressing and when reliance on evidence has
become de rigueur in academia (Eisenhart, 2009;
Hammersley, 2012; Misco, 2007).
In addition, several qualitative researchers
(especially holding pragmatist epistemologies)
have emphasized practical considerations, claim-
ing that there must be a way to translate qualita-
tive findings, so that they can be applied
practically, or to shape the opinion of decision-
makers whose actions affect people’s well-being
(Groleau et al., 2009; Thorne, 2009; Thorne &
Darbyshire, 2005).
Porte and Richards (2012) claimed that aspects
of qualitative research that have been suggested
by qualitative researchers as being inherently
incompatible with generalization (e.g., LeCompte
& Goetz, 1982)—such as the problem of change
over time, the “personalistic” nature of qualitative
research and ethnography, and methodological
and representational limitations—can be ad-
dressed, and that generalizability and replicability
(at least of the approximate version of the con-
cept) should be demanded within qualitative
research. Briefly, these scholars claimed that if
the original study’s researchers set rigorous stan-
dards in terms of how data collection procedures
were developed and represented in the original
study, and supplied a detailed delineation of
specific contexts, then a replication of the research
would be possible (see Porte & Richards, 2012,
for an expanded discussion of how these limita-
tions can be addressed).
The Potential of Replication Studies in
Qualitative Research
In this section, I propose how useful and
important it could be for qualitative researchers
to consider the notion of replication. Although, as
mentioned above, this idea is not foreign to
positivist/post-positivist qualitative researchers
(see Porte, 2013), I wish to suggest that certain
interpretations of the concept might be useful for
constructivist and advocacy/participatory re-
searchers as well. In what follows, I consider
four critical aspects, that may assist researchers
to decide if and when to use replication, and what
type of replication to use: the type of replication,
the researcher’s epistemological stance and
approach, the aim of the replication, and the
nature of the study. Then, I suggest strategies
to assist in facilitating such replication.
Considerations for the Use of Replication
Relevant Types of Replication
It is important to clarify what types of replica-
tion are relevant to qualitative research. Clearly,
exact replication or repetition of a study is neither
possible nor sought. Partial or approximate
replication—where the original study’s opera-
tions and procedures are adhered to, but some
variables are changed to allow for eventual com-
parability between the two studies and their
outcomes—also does not align well with qualita-
tive research. In contrast to quantitative research,
where an effort is made to control some variables
to see how another specific variable changes or
impacts the results, the aim of qualitative replica-
tion is not to control variables.
For example, a researcher may wish to investi-
gate one study’s research questions among new
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
and different samples. Surely, for constructivist
qualitative researchers, the point is not to make
sure that there are resemblances in all aspects of
the research, because clearly, different research-
ers have their own sensitivities, interpretive
lenses, and styles. Therefore, a belief that even
partial replication is possible is naïve and unlikely
to occur in qualitative research. As Willig (2019)
claimed: “Whilst the methodological procedures
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-
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
same” (p. 14).
However, I suggest that the third type of repli-
cation, conceptual replication, may have rele-
vance for qualitative research. In conceptual
replication, previous research questions are
examined using a design that may differ in several
ways from that of the original study. The re-
searchers may use different samples and/or meth-
ods to collect data or examine the topic of interest
in a different fashion from the way that it was
examined in the original study. I use the term
“replication logic” to emphasize the need to
consider when replication is appropriate for qual-
itative researchers.
Replication logic asks: What type of replica-
tion makes sense for this particular type of quali-
tative research, and to what purpose? Originally,
the term replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989) was
suggested with specific reference to case study
research, the idea being that each case stands on
its own as an analytic unit and preserves the rich
local context, but that cases can be combined in a
series “sampled for theoretical reasons, such as
revelation of an unusual phenomenon, replication
of findings from other cases, contrary replication,
elimination of alternative explanations, and elab-
oration of the emergent theory” (Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007, p. 27).
Along these same lines, I adopt the term to
suggest that single studies can be combined with
other studies for theoretical reasons, such as the
revelation of an unusual phenomenon or an elab-
oration of an emergent theory. As such, the focus
shifts away from using replication as a way to
validate the original study findings and towards a
way of using, extending, and/or applying the
original study’s findings in other contexts.
Recently, Talkad Sukumar and Metoyer (2019)
suggested a definition for qualitative replication,
which aligns with my definition of conceptual
replication:
371
A replication is a (novel) qualitative study conducted by
independent researchers replicating one or more aspects
(such as study design, research questions, context,
methods, and participants) of an earlier qualitative study
and embedding within its findings an interpretive com-
parison with a view to corroborate, elaborate, contrast,
or clarify the elements corresponding to the replicated
aspects with those of the earlier study (p. 2).
The Researcher’s Epistemological Stance
The second aspect that researchers interested in
qualitative replication should consider is their
epistemological stance and paradigmatic approach
to research. Researchers holding a constructivist-
interpretive or advocacy/participatory stance to
research may either view replication as foreign
to their paradigm, or as relevant only insofar as
transferability is implied. They may also decide to
perform conceptual replication, as its aims and
strategies as described above align with epistemol-
ogies of constructed and contextual knowledge.
Positivist and postpositivist qualitative research-
ers will have fewer issues with the idea of replica-
tion, as they view qualitative research as being one
way of locating the essence or truth of a phenome-
non. Therefore, for them, replication is a critical
part of validating the research findings. When
conducting replication studies, they try to adhere
to the positivist requirements of replicability using
different “objective” methods (e.g., numerically
coding interview texts, or measuring inter-rater
reliability between judges who analyze data).
Finally, pragmatic qualitative researchers will
view the need for replication as context-bound, and
as defined by the specific study’s needs, and will be
less intrigued by philosophical claims, as “prag-
matism is not committed to any one system of
philosophy and reality” (Creswell, 2003, p. 12).
Going back to the example mentioned earlier,
of studying racist attitudes towards immigrants,
positivist/post-positivist qualitative researchers
will document the variables that are prone to
change between the original study and the repli-
cation study (such as the political context, geo-
graphical location, etc.), but they will try to
control them and to create a sample, procedure,
and analytic strategies as similar as possible to
those used in the original study. By contrast,
constructivist and advocacy/participatory quali-
tative researchers, when conducting a conceptual
replication, may focus on one aspect of the origi-
nal study, such as the notion of racist attitudes, but
conduct the new study in a context in which all of
 372 TUVAL-MASHIACH
the other aspects differ from those of the original
study. Or they may conduct their conceptual
replication study on anti-racist attitudes, or (if
their paradigmatic stance is advocacy/participa-
tory) they may study institutionalized racist
norms. Pragmatic qualitative researchers will
assess the applied need for replicating the study,
and if there is a pragmatic justification, they may
decide which aspects of the original study to
replicate, according to their specific prag-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
matic needs.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
A related consideration is the need to refer to
the fit between the original and the new research-
ers’ epistemological stance. Because each epis-
temology leads to different methodologies
used—including strategies for data collection,
interpretive frameworks, and the presentation
of findings—it seems that the better the fit, the
more aspects of the study that can be replicated.
Importantly, my view is that even when there is a
discrepancy between the epistemologies of the
two researchers, a conceptual replication which
borrows only the theoretical aspect of the study
(e.g., the topic studied) is still possible, but is
much more limited in scope.
Aim of Replication
Another consideration is: What is the aim of the
replication for the specific study? If the replica-
tion study aims only to validate the original study,
or evaluate its findings, and therefore, replication
is perceived as successful only when the new
study confirms the original study’s findings, then
such an understanding of replication is indeed
foreign to qualitative research. The notion of
replication that I suggest for qualitative research
is not one that is meant to evaluate the rigor of the
original study, but to broaden the perspective of
the findings to facilitate an accumulation of
knowledge.
Therefore, such a replication is not defined as
successful or unsuccessful on the basis of its
converging results; furthermore, there is no point
in measuring its success, as no effort is made to
arrive at one correct result. This notion stands in
stark contrast to the way that replication is usually
defined in positivist research, where a failure to
confirm the original study’s findings renders the
replication unsuccessful and raises questions
about the value of the original study’s methods
or findings. On the contrary, qualitative replica-
tions tell us something important about the
findings of the original study, whether they repeat
these findings or not, because they can uncover
the limits of the findings, or the variations of these
findings in other samples or populations. There-
fore, qualitative replications are evaluated on the
basis of their relevance to the original study, not
on the basis of their success in repeating findings.
For example, researchers might conduct a con-
ceptual replication following a study that
explored ambiguous loss (a loss that occurs with-
out closure or clear understanding, see Boss,
2007) in families where fathers, who are present
in the family (i.e., at home), suffer from military-
related posttraumatic stress disorder. The new
study’s researchers decide to explore the experi-
ence of ambiguous loss in families where fathers
are hospitalized for long periods, for medical
reasons, and are, therefore, away from their fami-
lies. In this example, although the loss circum-
stances are different, and in some ways opposite
(fathers’ physical as opposed to psychological
absence), the researchers can still consider their
study a replication, because they have extended
the conceptual boundaries of the notion of ambig-
uous loss. Such an exploration may lead to a better
understanding of different types of loss and the
impact of these types of loss on family members
in different contexts and societies.
The Nature of the Study
The last aspect that researchers should consider
is the nature of the study, and its claims of
generalizability. When a study explores a very
singular or rare phenomenon (e.g., near death
experiences), or when the method used is indi-
vidualized (such as autoethnography), generaliz-
ability is usually not sought, and therefore,
replication is less relevant than when the phe-
nomenon of interest is common or universal
(e.g., loss of a loved one, motherhood) and
when the methods of the original study can
be explicitly described. In this case, other re-
searchers who wish to extend the original
research findings might find Talkad Sukumar
and Metoyer’s (2019) definition mentioned
above useful in considering how and what
they wish to replicate.
Strategies
In this last section, I refer to two strategies that
are important when planning or considering a
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
qualitative replication study. For many years,
even if researchers wanted to connect their study
to a previous study on the same topic in a way that
would replicate or extend the knowledge about
the phenomenon, doing so was difficult in practi-
cal terms. This difficulty stemmed from a lack of
clear guidelines as to how the process and meth-
ods of qualitative research should be reported
when preparing for publication.
Challenges for qualitative researchers wishing
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
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
in a broad range of researchers’ choices ranging
from short and idiosyncratic descriptions to thor-
ough and detailed descriptions of all methodo-
logical aspects of the study (Levitt et al., 2017).
Suggestions for guidelines have been proposed by
several authors (e.g., Elliott et al., 1999; Morrow,
2005; Tracy, 2010; Wertz et al., 2011). Recently,
an effort to systemize the reporting standards of
qualitative research led by Levitt et al. (2018)
resulted in a set of recommendations for reporting
standards that could advance qualitative research.
The systematization of communicating meth-
odology and design paves the way for related
future studies. In addition to the general consen-
sus on what should be reported and how to do so, I
wish to suggest two additional aspects that
authors can refer to in order to reinforce the
possibility of replication by other researchers.
The first one refers to context, and the second
to assuring transparency.
Contextualizing
Every study is conducted in a specific context,
or more precisely, in a multiplicity of contexts: It
takes place at a certain time, in a certain society or
culture, with a certain sample, and is conducted
by specific researchers and interviewers. All these
contexts exist in the background of the study and
create the unique circumstances in which the
research takes place and in which the findings
are crafted and described. Although it is virtually
impossible to refer to all contexts (Zilber et al.,
2008), it is nevertheless important to contextual-
ize one’s study in the central relevant contexts in
which it occurs.
Importantly, the task of contextualization is
required from both the original study’s
researcher, and the one who later conducts the
replication. When both researchers situate their
studies, it makes it easier for readers as well as
future researchers to appreciate the similarities
373
and differences between the different contexts of
each study, so that in turn they can decide on the
nature of their replication (and situate their study).
Levitt et al. (2018) suggested several ways in
which qualitative researchers could situate their
research. First, researchers should describe their
relationship to the study topic, to their partici-
pants, and to related ideological commitments.
Second, the contextual circumstances in which a
phenomenon is being studied are important to
detail. Although some contextual aspects are
straightforward and are part of the information
provided in any paper (e.g., age, data sources,
gender of participants, country where the study is
conducted, year when it is conducted), there are
other more subtle contextual aspects that must be
disclosed. If they are not, then the readers cannot
know they are missing, and they are unable to
consider their relevance for any future research.
For example, researchers studying mothers’
experiences in the face of their sons’ enlistment
to combat units must contextualize their study
(i.e., was it conducted during wartime or during
geo-political quiet?) in order for readers to prop-
erly comprehend the findings. Another example
is provided by Levitt et al. (2018) about the need
to describe social dynamics and power relations,
especially when the phenomenon under investi-
gation is related to social dynamics, such as the
study of marginalized groups.
These considerations imply that, first, there
cannot be an a-priori list of contextual items to
include in one’s contextualization, as each study
is uniquely situated within specific contexts. Sec-
ond, contextualization refers to more than just a
listing of the facets or aspects that potentially
shaped the research process or its findings.
Rather, it requires that the researcher describes
in what ways these aspects might have affected
the research, its procedures, the interpretation and
the analysis, and the reported findings. Such a
detailed situatedness of the study is related to the
second strategy, that of ensuring transparency.
Ensuring Transparency
Transparency of the research process im-
plies that:
Researchers must disclose all relevant research pro-
cesses via an honest detailing of every aspect of the
data collection process and the rules used to analyze
data, by presenting excerpts of the textual data in which
the readers can themselves discern the patterns identified
 374 TUVAL-MASHIACH
by the analysis, and/or by making a detailed record of
the data available to other analysts (Tuval-Mashiach,
2017, p. 128).
Transparency serves several purposes, the
main one of which is enhancing the trustworthi-
ness of a study, as readers are free to follow the
research and the factors that were taken into
consideration and evaluate their adequateness
(Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Hiles, 2008; Hiles &
Čermak, 2007; Yardley, 2000). However, transpar-
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
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
study. It enables the reader to extend or replicate
aspects of the study in their own future studies. At
its core is the assumption, shared by most qualita-
tive approaches to inquiry, that researchers are
responsible for enabling their readers to follow
the research process from as early as its inception,
and all the way through the data collection and data
analysis.
Contextualization is, therefore, part and parcel
of transparency, as transparency addresses not
only questions of “in what contexts is the present
study embedded” but also refers to the why and
how of the research. Although transparency is
necessary in all kinds of research, and is not
unique to qualitative research, it is especially
crucial for qualitative researchers. Namely, the
dynamic and situated nature of qualitative
research makes each case of qualitative research
a singular process and requires researchers to craft
their own methods or make changes in accor-
dance with the circumstances.
Although a thorough description of the steps
required for researchers to be transparent about
their research lies beyond the scope of this paper, I
briefly sketch a model designed to enhance trans-
parency (see Hiles & Čermak, 2007; Levitt et al.,
2017; Tong et al., 2012; Tuval-Mashiach, 2017,
for a comprehensive discussion of transparency).
This model (Tuval-Mashiach, 2017) suggests
that to improve transparency, researchers must
address three central questions: what they did,
how they did it, and why they did it. “What”
questions refer to describing what was included in
the study, for example its paradigmatic stance, the
approach used, methods for data collection and
analysis, and the sequence of stages. “How”
questions refer to the efforts made by researchers
to disclose aspects of the research process and
how these aspects developed. Example questions
might be: How did the analysis develop? What
were the stages of the analysis? How was the
material sorted and arranged to be presented?
How did the researcher move from the raw texts
to the written analysis? How were conclusions
arrived at? “Why” questions refer to the rationale
underlying certain aspects of the research, and
deal with efforts to make reflexively transparent
the reasons and justifications for choices made
throughout the course of the research, and reflec-
tions about the researcher’s involvement and
personal relationship with the research questions
and materials. Example questions include: Why
was the theoretical approach chosen for the
research? Why was a specific methodology
adopted? These three questions pertain to all
stages of the research, including planning, data
collection, analysis, and the writing of the final
report.
To summarize this section, I wish to emphasize
that taking into account both context and trans-
parency is the responsibility, first and foremost, of
the researcher who conducts the (original) study.
Namely, although it is always left for the readers
to decide whether the study they have read is
potentially transferable to their own specific
research contexts, and if replication is appropri-
ate, this decision is also nevertheless contingent
on the transparency and clarity of the data pro-
vided by the original study researchers. Readers
require this information to decide whether and
how to replicate aspects of the study.
Summary
I opened my discussion by reviewing the con-
cept of replication and its status in positivist
research, aiming to demonstrate that even where
replication exists as a necessary criterion in the
establishment of the quality and reliability of a
study, it is far from being simple or even possible
to achieve. The replication crisis in the field of
psychology, following the failure in 2015 to
replicate a large body of research, has raised
awareness of the complexity of the concept and
led researchers to propose a broader perspective
and additional types of replication, including the
understanding that replication should not be
viewed through the prism of its outcome, but
rather via its theoretical commitment. I have
suggested that such notions of replication pave
the way for a potential application of replication
in qualitative research.
In discussing the potential uses of replication
for qualitative researchers, I have suggested see-
ing conceptual replication as being compatible
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
with qualitative research and reviewed relevant
concepts within the qualitative literature. Finally,
I have described the considerations that research-
ers must be cognizant of regarding the circum-
stances in which replication becomes relevant,
and the strategies that researchers should employ
enable other researchers to replicate or extend a
prior study.
To conclude, I suggest that using replication in
qualitative research is highly relevant and important
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
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
allow for both the accumulation of knowledge, as
well as for promoting communication with positiv-
ist researchers, regarding what can and should be
replicated, and how. Examining concepts that have
been traditionally identified with one paradigm and
exploring their potential value for the other para-
digm may benefit us all as researchers.
References
Ali, A. M., & Yusof, H. (2011). Quality in qualitative
studies: The case of validity, reliability and generaliz-
ability. Issues in Social and Environmental Account-
ing, 5(1), 25–64. https://doi.org/10.22164/isea.v5i1.59
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for
assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 485–499). Sage
Publications.
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded
theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of
Agribusiness, 23(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.22004/
ag.econ.59612
Boss, P. (2007). Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges
for scholars and practitioners. Family Relations,
56(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729
.2007.00444.x
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based
policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
osobl/9780199841608.001.0001
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative
research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435–436. https://
www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/trustworthiness-
qualitative-research/docview/1849700459/se-2?
accountid=14483
Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the
scientific superiority of conceptual replications for
scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 66, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.je
sp.2015.10.002
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative and mixed method approaches (2nd
ed.). Sage Publications.
375
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The
Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage
Publications.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case
study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989
.4308385
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory
building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
Eisenhart, M. (2009). Generalization from qualitative
inquiry. In K. Ercikan & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Gen-
eralizing from educational research (pp. 51–66).
Routledge.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999).
Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative
research studies in psychology and related fields.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 215–
229. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466599162782
Freese, J., & Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in social
science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 147–
165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-
053450
Gergen, K. J. (2014). Pursuing excellence in qualita-
tive inquiry. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 49–60.
https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000002
Groleau, D., Zelkowitz, P., & Cabral, I. E. (2009).
Enhancing generalizability: Moving from an inti-
mate to a political voice. Qualitative Health
Research, 19(3), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1049732308329851
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trust-
worthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational
Communication and Technology, 29(2), Article
75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemolog-
ical and methodological bases of naturalistic
inquiry. Educational Communication and Tech-
nology, 30(4), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02765185
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing
paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 105–117). Sage Publications.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnog-
raphy? Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (2012). Qualitative causal analysis:
Grounded theorizing and the qualitative survey. In
B. Cooper, J. Glaesser, R. Gomm, & M. Hammersley
(Eds.), Challenging the qualitative-quantitative
divide (pp. 116–140). Continuum.
Hiles, D. R. (2008). Transparency. In L. M. Givens
(Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative
research (pp. 890–892). Sage Publications.
Hiles, D. R., & Čermak, I. (2007, July 3–6). Qualita-
tive research: Transparency and narrative oriented
inquiry [Paper presentation]. 10th European
 376 TUVAL-MASHIACH
Congress of Psychology, Prague, Czech Republic.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.492.634&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research
for nurses (pp. 115–129). Blackwell Science.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The
assessment of trustworthiness. The American Jour-
nal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of
reliability and validity in ethnographic research.
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.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost,
D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018).
Journal article reporting standards for qualitative
primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed meth-
ods research in psychology: The APA Publications
and Communications Board task force report.
American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://
doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow,
S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations
for designing and reviewing qualitative research in
psychology: Promoting methodological integrity.
Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/
10.1037/qup0000082
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in educa-
tion: A user’s guide. Sage Publications.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychology’s replication crisis
and the grant culture: Righting the ship. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 12(4), 660–664. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1745691616687745
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic
inquiry. Sage Publications.
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2017). Toward a more
perfect psychology: Improving trust, accuracy, and
transparency in research. American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000033-000
Maxwell, J. A. (2021). Why qualitative methods are
necessary for generalization. Qualitative Psy-
chology, 8(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/
qup0000173
Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization
in and form qualitative analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.),
The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis
(pp. 540–553). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781446282243.n37
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015).
Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis?
What does “failure to replicate” really mean?
American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0039400
Misco, T. (2007). The frustrations of reader generaliz-
ability and grounded theory: Alternative considera-
tions for transferability. Journal of Research
Practice, 3(1), Article M10. http://jrp.icaap.org/
index.php/jrp/article/view/45/77
Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens,
A. C. J. W. (2007). Most published research find-
ings are false-but a little replication goes a long way.
PLOS Medicine, 4(2), Article e28. https://doi.org/10
.1371/journal.pmed.0040028
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in
qualitative research in counseling psychology.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–
260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., &
Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establish-
ing reliability and validity in qualitative research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2),
13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202
Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2020). What is
replication? PLOS Biology, 18(3), Article e3000691.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the
reproducibility of psychological science. Science,
349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10
.1126/science.aac4716
Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. (2012). Editors’
introduction to the special section on replicability
in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–
530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253
Payne, G., & Williams, M. (2005). Generalization in
qualitative research. Sociology, 39(2), 295–314.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038505050540
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in
quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and
strategies. International Journal of Nursing Stud-
ies, 47(11), 1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in
counseling psychology: A primer on research para-
digms and philosophy of science. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Porte, G. (2013). Who needs replication? CALICO
Journal, 30(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj
.30.1.10-15
Porte, G., & Richards, K. (2012). Focus article: Rep-
lication in second language writing research. Jour-
nal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 284–293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.002
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020).
Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: De-
coupling transparency from replication in establish-
ing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0001839219887663
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in
qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science,
8(3), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-1986
04000-00005
Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology,
science, and knowledge construction: Broadening
 REPLICATION IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual
Review of Psychology, 69(1), 487–510. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U.
(2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed
flexibility in data collection and analysis allows
presenting anything as significant. Psychological
Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0956797611417632
Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76–80.
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
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Spiers, J., Morse, J. M., Olson, K., Mayan, M., &
Barrett, M. (2018). Reflection/commentary on a past
article:“Verification strategies for establishing reliabil-
ity and validity in qualitative research.” International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–2. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1609406918788237
Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis
and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1745691613514450
Tackett, J. L., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Introduction to
the special section on increasing replicability, trans-
parency, and openness in clinical psychology. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 487–492.
https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000455
Talkad Sukumar, P., & Metoyer, R. (2019, February
2). Replication and transparency of qualitative
research from a constructivist perspective. https://
doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6efvp
Thorne, S. (2009). The role of qualitative research
within an evidence-based context: Can metasynth-
esis be the answer? International Journal of Nurs-
ing Studies, 46(4), 569–575. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.001
Thorne, S., & Darbyshire, P. (2005). Land mines in the
field: A modest proposal for improving the craft of
qualitative health research. Qualitative Health
Research, 15(8), 1105–1113. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1049732305278502
Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., &
Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in report-
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
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-
tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
377
Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1077800410383121
Trafimow, D. (2020). Conceptual replications in dif-
ferent frames. Journal of Theoretical and Philo-
sophical Psychology, 40(1), 62–64. https://doi.org/
10.1037/teo0000144
Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2017). Raising the curtain: The
importance of transparency in qualitative research.
Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 126–138. https://
doi.org/10.1037/qup0000062
Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson,
R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five
ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomeno-
logical psychology, grounded theory, discourse
analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry.
Guilford Press.
Wiggins, B. J., & Christopherson, C. D. (2019). The
replication crisis in psychology: An overview for
theoretical and philosophical psychology. Journal of
Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39(4),
202–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000137
Willig, C. (2017). Interpretation in qualitative
research. In C. Willg & W. Stainton-Rogers
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research
in psychology (pp. 274–288). Sage publications.
Willig, C. (2019). What can qualitative psychology
contribute to psychological knowledge? Psycholog-
ical Methods, 24(6), 796–804. https://doi.org/10
.1037/met0000218
Wood, B. D., Mutemi, A., & Gaarder, M. M. (2019).
Demand driven replication research: An overview
of financial services for the poor replication
research. Journal of Development Effectiveness,
11(4), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342
.2019.1696871
Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health
research. Psychology & Health, 15(2), 215–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440008400302
Zilber, T. B., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Lieblich, A.
(2008). The embedded narrative: Navigating through
multiple contexts. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(6),
1047–1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800408
321616
Received November 23, 2020
Revision received September 2, 2021
Accepted September 8, 2021 ▪