The SRQR guidelines for writing qualitative research articles
Recommendations to help describe your work clearly
Your research will be used by people from different disciplines and backgrounds for decades to come. Reporting guidelines list the information you should describe so that everyone can understand, replicate, and synthesise your work.
Reporting guidelines make writing research easier, and transparent research leads to better patient outcomes.
Smoother publishing
Many journals require completed reporting checklists at submission.
Maximum impact
From nobel prizes to null results, articles have more impact when everyone can use them.
How to use this guideline
- Read the full guidance below.
- Write your manuscript. Use a template if you like.
- Cite this guideline in your manuscript.
- Complete a checklist and include it with your journal submission.
Reporting guidelines do not prescribe order nor structure. You should include items in the article body whenever possible but some items can be reported in tables, figures, or supplementary materials if necessary (see FAQs).
Additional resources:
Guidance
Approx. 16 min read
Is this the right guideline for you?
Title & Abstract
1. Title
Describe the nature and topic of the study.
Identify the study as qualitative or indicate the approach or data collection methods.
2. Abstract
Summarise key elements of the study including:
background about the problem or phenomenon of interest
description of the study purpose or research question
methods, including the approach or perspective (e.g., general inductive, grounded theory), context (setting, time period), sample (number and key characteristics of participants, events, documents), data collection strategies (e g., observation, interview, focus group) and data analysis techniques
description of main findings (e.g., themes or inferences) related to the study purpose and/or research question
study implications
Information presented in the abstract should be consistent with the information presented in the full text.
Use the format of your intended journal (see note).
Introduction
3. Problem Formulation
Describe the theoretical and/or practical issues or concerns that make the study necessary, including:
an overview of what is known about the problem
gaps in current knowledge (the problem statement)
the scope of the research problem or phenomena addressed in the study (what will and will not be included)
theoretical and/or empirical work directly relevant to the problem or phenomena studied
the need for a qualitative approach.1
4. Purpose or research question
Include a statement of study intent. This can be framed as one or more research questions, purposes, goals, or objectives.2
Methods
5. Qualitative approach and research paradigm
Describe your qualitative approach, your guiding theory (if appropriate), and identify the research paradigm.3
Explain why the selected approach is appropriate for the research question.
Provide references to theories or traditions that guide the use of the approach as needed.
If you don’t know what your approach or paradigm was, or you don’t think you had one, it’s OK to reflect on this after collecting data and you should still report it. Read this list to see what best describes your work.
6. Researcher characteristics and reflexivity
Describe how roles and identities of research team members influence choice of research approach, data collection, and data analysis.4
Describe the perspectives, assumptions, prior knowledge, preliminary hypotheses, and/or motives (the “stance”) of the members of the research team.
Describe the researchers’ relationships to participants in the study and what decisions were made in light of these relationships.5
If your research was observational (e.g., ethnography), describe the role of the researcher along a spectrum from passive observer (no involvement in the activity studied) to participant-observer (ranging from some limited involvement in the activity to full involvement).
There is no expectation that the study could be precisely replicated; these characteristics and perspectives of the researcher should not be mentioned in the limitation section. (See also Item 14: Data Analysis)
7. Context
Describe the setting/site(s) in which the study was conducted, the reason(s) why the setting/site(s) was selected, and the salient cultural, political, historical, economic and/or other external factors that influence the study.
Additional context may be reported with findings (i.e., the Results section) to add evidence for interpretations and to enhance discussion of transferability.
8. Sampling strategy
Describe how and why research participants, sites, documents/artifacts, and/or events were selected for inclusion in (and, if appropriate, exclusion from) the study, along with a justification for this strategy.
Describe the sampling strategy rather than simply labeling it (e.g., “purposive” or “snowball”), since such labels do not have a universally accepted definition and, more importantly, procedures tend to be study- specific.
Describe how you established the final sample size:
If you used a flexible sampling strategy, then explain the criteria used to decide when no further sampling was necessary.
If data collection ended once saturation or sufficiency had been reached, then describe the specific criteria used to define saturation or sufficiency.
Describe procedures used to recruit participants, including:
who was involved in recruitment
what their relationship was to participants
how and when recruitment occurred
why these procedures were selected. (See also Item 6: Researcher characteristics and reflexivity)
9. Ethical issues pertaining to human subjects
Report approval for the study from an appropriate institutional review board for research associated with human subjects.
If you did not receive ethical approval, describe why.
Describe procedures used to protect participants, including:
data collection (e.g., recruitment and informed consent)
analysis (e.g., data security and integrity)
and reporting of findings (e.g., anonymization of excerpts).
If you provided compensation or offered incentives to facilitate participation, describe this too.
10. Data collection methods
Describe data collection methods and design in detail, and justify them in relation to the research question(s), paradigm, approach, and other methods.6
If data collection and analysis was iterative:
describe the iterative process
if changes occurred during the research process, describe how and why study procedures changed in response to evolving study findings.
Identify the study period.
Describe important characteristics of the individuals conducting interviews, observations or focus groups, and methods used to train these individuals.
11. Data collection instruments and technologies
Describe all data collection instruments, including their development, and if/how they changed over the course of the study. Cite relevant literatures, theories or conceptual frameworks as appropriate. Consider sharing the data collection instrument(s) or a detailed description of them in the article body, supplementary material, or published elsewhere.
Describe the use of equipment for audio or video recording, reproduction of paper documents or computer files, or other processes in data collection.
12. Units of study
Describe the number of participants, documents, or events included in the study (the units of study).
Describe characteristics of the participants, documents or events that are relevant to the study purpose and research question(s).7
Include the dates or timeframe for participation.
If the actual sample differs from the target sample, describe:
the difference,
why these differences may have occurred,
how this might affect the findings.
If the degree of participation varied among individuals, describe:
the different levels of participation,
the reasons for these differences (i.e., the researchers’ choice or the participants’ preferences),
and how these different levels of participation were taken into account in the analysis.
This information could appear in the Methods section as part of the description of the sample, or at the beginning of the Results section to provide context for the findings presented.
13. Data processing
Describe the ways in which data are prepared for analysis and managed throughout the analysis process. These activities might include transcription, coding, data entry, and organization of data. (See footnote for audio or visual recordings8).
Describe the processes used to organize, compile, and categorize data (e.g., field notes, transcripts, documents, photographs, artifacts) for analysis.
If you used transcripts, describe procedures used to check accuracy.
Describe procedures used to maintain data security and protect the privacy of participants, as specified in the human subjects protocols (see footnote on anonymisation9 as an example).
14. Data analysis
Describe your analytic process as transparently as possible.10
If you used an approach that has a well-defined process for data analysis (e.g., grounded theory, discourse analysis, phenomenography):
cite the guiding literature
describe your processes in sufficient detail so readers can judge the extent to which your processes align with the guiding approach.
If you modified or deviated from the guiding approach, explain and justify these modifications.
Specify the unit of analysis.11
Explain the rationale underlying different decisions made throughout the data analysis process to provide as much transparency as possible.12
If observations that contrast or deviate from identified concepts or themes were important to your analysis, describe how these discrepancies were handled during the analysis.
If you drew upon a theoretical perspective or framework during analysis, describe theoretical or other influences on your analysis scheme or categories if they exist. If you identified a theoretical perspective or framework early in the conception of the study or after reviewing some or all of their data, consider referring to these as “sensitizing concepts” to acknowledge that the approach is inductive, but with influence from relevant theory, models, or organizational schemes. Alternatively, explain that themes were developed from the data with no external influences.
Describe which members of the research team are involved in data analysis and what perspective(s) they bring to the analysis.
If software was used to assist with data analysis13, describe how it was used. Simply stating that software was used is insufficient.
15. Techniques to enhance trustworthiness
Describe methods used to ensure trustworthiness and credibility throughout the data collection and analysis process. (See footnote on commonly used techniques14).
Explain your choice of techniques and why these are appropriate for the particular study.
Results
16. Synthesis and interpretation
Describe the main analytic findings.15
In most cases, report a synthesis of the data along with specific quotes, examples, or illustrations derived from the data.
Consider describing frequency, variety, representativeness, counter-examples, concrete details, contextualization, conditions, and qualifications related to the findings.
Frequency counts play a limited role in qualitative research, and need not be reported unless they play a meaningful role in interpretation of the data.
If your findings include integration with prior literature or theory and/or the development of a theory, model or meta-narrative, consider using tables and figures to communicate these findings.
Items 16 and 18 can be reported in Results or Discussion sections.16
17. Links to empirical data
Provide evidence (e.g., quotes, field notes, text excerpts, photographs) to substantiate the more general and abstract concepts or inferences they present as findings.17
You could report this evidence in a table or figure, incorporated into a narrative description of findings, as a stand-alone narrative, or in text blocks embedded in the manuscript text. If you are constrained by word limits or media limitations (e.g.. video), consider sharing data via an appendix, supplemental material, or web-based repository.
Discussion
18. Integration with prior work, implications, transferability, and contribution(s) to the field
Describe how the findings and conclusions connect to, support, elaborate on, or challenge previous findings, experiences, theory, or a guiding paradigm or approach.18
Describe how the findings contribute to or advance the field.
Describe any implications of the work, such transferability or generalizability.
19. Limitations
Describe problems or gaps in their efforts to ensure trustworthiness and the potential implications.19
Describe how the chosen paradigm, approach, and methods will influence the situations to which the findings may reasonably apply.20 (See also Item 18.)
Describe how specific decisions or events in the conduct of the study strengthen or weaken the rigor of the findings.
Other
20. Conflicts of interest
Describe any real or potential conflicts of interest that might have influenced or could appear to have influenced the research.
Describe:
how these conflicts were managed in the conduct of the study,
the potential impact on study findings and/or conclusions.
Some aspects may be mentioned as part of reflexivity (see Item 6).
21. Funding
Describe any sources of funding and other support for the study.
Describe the role of funders in data collection, data analysis, and reporting if applicable.
Ready to get started?
How to cite
For attribution, please cite this guideline as:
Bridget O’Brien, Ilene Harris, Thomas Beckman, Darcy Reed, and David Cook. 2023. “The SRQR Guidelines for Writing Qualitative Research Articles version 1.1.” The EQUATOR Network Guideline Dissemination Platform. https://doi.org/10.1234/equator/1010101.You can use your reference manager to save citation information for this webpage, or copy the BibTeX below.
FAQs
Who made this guideline?
Bridget O’Brien, PhD has been a faculty member in the Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, since 2008. She is a professor of medicine and an education scientist in the Office of Medical Education’s Center for Faculty Educators. As co-director of the Teaching Scholars Program and the UCSF-University of Utrecht Health Professions Education doctoral program she teaches and mentors faculty and learners interested in education research and scholarship. At the San Francisco VA, she directs the Advanced Fellowship in Health Professions Education Evaluation and Research. In 2015 she was selected as one of five national Macy Faculty Scholars supported by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation and in 2021 she was selected as a KIPRIME Fellow at the Karolinska Instituet. She is a deputy editor for the journal Academic Medicine.
Dr. Ilene Harris, deceased, was professor and head, Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Dr. Thomas Beckman is professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
Dr. Darcy Reed is associate professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
Dr. David Cook is associate director, Mayo Clinic Online Learning, research chair, Mayo Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, and professor of medicine and medical education, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
How was this guideline made?
The developers synthesised 40 sets of recommendations previously proposed by experts in qualitative methods. You can read about their development process here.
Does SRQR prescribe structure?
No. This reporting guideline does not prescribe a rigid format or standardized content. Consider each item and prioritize elements that are most relevant to your study, findings, context, and readers.
You may prefer to report an item in a different order, section, or in a table or figure. If you feel confident that an item is less important to your study, you could report it in an appendix or supplement. If you think an item is not applicable, state why. You don’t need to write your article in the order the items are presented.
Where can I get general writing training?
The EQUATOR Network provides in-person training for writing research articles.
AuthorAID have resources, an online course, and mentoring to help authors.
Research paradigm
The set of beliefs and assumptions that guide the research process. These commonly include positivist, post-positivist, constructivist or interpretivist, and critical theory. Qualitative research generally draws from a post-positivist or constructivist/interpretivist paradigm.”
Instruments
Bias
Sampling strategy
Several sampling strategies are commonly used in qualitative research, although most fall under the umbrella of purposeful (or purposive) sampling.
Purposeful sampling means that participants, documents, or events are selected for their relevance to the research question, based on guiding theory or experiences and assumptions of the researchers. Over the course of the research process, researchers may determine that additional or different participants, documents, or events should be included to address the research question.
Other sampling techniques, such as theoretical sampling (seeking examples of theoretical constructs), snowball sampling (using study participants to identify additional participants who meet study criteria), and convenience sampling (including any volunteers with no or minimal criteria for inclusion) may be appropriate depending on the question and approach, so long as the authors provide explanation and justification.
Approach
Data collection methods
Iterative
Study period
Ethnography
The scientific description of peoples and cultures with their customs, habits, and mutual differences.
Grounded theory
A method consisting of a set of systematic, but flexible, guidelines for conducting inductive qualitative inquiry aimed toward theory construction. This method focuses squarely on the analytic phases of research, although both data collection and analysis inform and shape each other and are conducted in tandem.
Degree of participation
For example, if some participants were observed and interviewed and others only interviewed, or if some participants completed multiple interviews and others completed a single interview, these variations should be explained.
Unit of analysis
In qualitative research, the unit of analysis is not necessarily the same as the unit of sampling (e.g., individual participants or events). Instead, some approaches use specific events as the unit of analysis, such as mentions of a particular topic or experience, or observations of a particular behavior or phenomenon, while others use groups rather than individual group participants. This specification has implications for how the data are organized and analyzed as well as the inferences drawn from the data.
Reflexivity
Reflexivity refers to intentional, systematic consideration of the potential or actual effects of the researcher(s) on all aspects of the study process.
Transferability
The transferability of a research finding is the extent to which it can be applied in other contexts and studies. It is thus equivalent to or a replacement for the terms generalizability and external validity.
Generalizability
The appropriate scope for generalization of the findings beyond the study (e.g., to other settings, populations, time periods, circumstances)
Analytic findings
Analytic findings may include interpretations, inferences, narratives, themes, and models.
Frequency counts
The frequency of specific themes or codes.
Footnotes
Justifications for a qualitative approach include to elucidate poorly defined or previously unexplored constructs, to generate theories or to develop causal explanations connecting processes and outcomes, to understand phenomena as they naturally occur and the role of context, to explore problems involving high complexity, to gain insight into participants’ perspectives when such insight is lacking)↩︎
Qualitative studies often explore “how” and “why” questions related to a social or human problems or phenomenon, and they are designed to enhance readers’ understanding of a problem or phenomenon.↩︎
Qualitative research includes an array of approaches and methodologies, both general (e.g., qualitative content analysis, general inductive approach) and specific (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenography).↩︎
Relevant personal characteristics might include cultural background, occupation, experience, training, position/ power dynamics, gender, race/ethnicity, and sponsoring institution.↩︎
For example, were any members of the research team part of the sample of potential participants in the study? Do any members of the team teach, supervise, or have any authority over participants in the study? If so, how do these characteristics influence choices about their roles in data collection and analysis?↩︎
Researchers may choose to use information from multiple sources, contexts, and/or time points depending on their approach and research question(s). (See Item 11 for triangulation.)↩︎
For participants, characteristics might include age, race, ethnicity, gender, profession, institution, year of training, or relationship to the researcher and/or other participants in the study. For documents, this might include the source, intended audience, date, or type of document. For events, this might include the location, date(s), length, characteristics of attendees or participants in the event, or mood or emotional climate.↩︎
Details might include indication of verbatim transcription of dialogue, additional notes to capture non- verbal information (especially for group interviews or focus groups), and annotations to indicate vocal inflections and utterances, as appropriate for the analytic approach.↩︎
If data are anonymized, the authors should explain how and at what point in the process this occurred. Authors may choose to use anonymous labels or identifiers to represent quotes or excerpts from unique participants, documents or events, in order to reflect the variety of sources from which such data were derived.↩︎
E.g., characterize the processes and decisions made for initial classification or segmentation of data, pattern identification and description, and/or development of in-depth interpretations.↩︎
In qualitative research, the unit of analysis is not necessarily the same as the unit of sampling (e.g., individual participants or events). Instead, some approaches use specific events as the unit of analysis, such as mentions of a particular topic or experience, or observations of a particular behavior or phenomenon, while others use groups rather than individual group participants. This specification has implications for how the data are organized and analyzed as well as the inferences drawn from the data.↩︎
In some approaches researchers use memoing or bracketing to make their reflections, interpretations, and links among passages explicit and more transparent to others.↩︎
e.g., used to apply codes after the final coding scheme was developed; to extract coded passages for further synthesis and identification of themes; or to identify passages with key words↩︎
Techniques to enhance trustworthiness will depend on the paradigm, approach, and/or methods used. Commonly used techniques include: member checking; triangulation of data sources, methods, and/or researchers; creation of an explicit audit trail; and immersion in the site of data collection for an extended period of time (especially for research in which an observer’s presence is likely to disrupt the phenomenon under investigation). Member checking involves sharing findings, such as descriptions of key phenomena, themes, or an explanatory model, with participants and asking them to verify the accuracy or resonance with their perspectives. Triangulation involves using more than one data source, method, or researcher to add diverse perspectives on the findings of the study and, in some approaches, to test the transferability or generalizability of a model. An audit trail involves careful documentation of all decisions made throughout the study, from initial conceptualization to study design, sampling, analysis, and reporting, to provide transparency and to enable an external researcher to review all the steps involved in the study.↩︎
The nature of these findings and how they are reported will depend on the approach and methodology selected and thus should be in alignment with the approach and methods.↩︎
In qualitative research the distinction between results and discussion tends to blur because analysis often involves interpretation, inference, and synthesis. Although most journals require separate sections for Results and Discussion, many elements of Items 16 and 18 could reasonably be reported in either section. As such, we defer to authors and editors to determine where to report these essential elements.↩︎
Evidence is typically de-identified to protect the privacy of study participants, settings, and/or institutions.↩︎
The discussion provides authors an opportunity to elaborate on their findings in relation to their research question(s) and study purpose(s); connect their findings to prior empirical work, theories, and/or frameworks; and discuss implications.↩︎
Whereas you should describe techniques used to ensure trustworthiness in the Methods section of the manuscript, this section is about the gaps that you didn’t or couldn’t cover. For example, if you intended to interview individuals with certain characteristics, or who might offer different perspectives, but were unsuccessful in recruiting any willing participants, explain this issue and describe possible consequences for transferability. (See also Item 18.)↩︎
All research paradigms and approaches have strengths and weaknesses.↩︎
Citation
@misc{o'brien2023,
author = {O’Brien, Bridget and Harris, Ilene and Beckman, Thomas and
Reed, Darcy and Cook, David},
title = {The {SRQR} Guidelines for Writing Qualitative Research
Articles Version 1.1},
version = {1.1},
date = {},
doi = {10.1234/equator/1010101},
langid = {en}
}