Evidence of Quality in Qualitative Research Quality in qualitative research is an evolving concern as the pursuit of research as per qualitative methodology progresses. Thus to ensure that quality, trustworthiness, and credibility of my research data are of measured standard within the realm of research, a researcher needs to develop reflexive skills towards interrogating prevailing assumptions from the researcher’s perspective and critiquing self in order to eliminates personal influences and biases. However, this would be hinged on some fundamentals criteria that serves as a basis; thus, Tracy (2010) affirmed that eight key markers are associated with quality in qualitative research. These include worthy topic, rich rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethics, and meaningful coherence; exhibition of these attributes by a researcher would be a function of non-biases and actualization of a substantial level of reflection by researcher. Doing this would ensure that quality, trustworthiness, and credibility with regard to the research and data are actualized. Interview as a means of data collection may be occasioned by both internal and external factors that abound with the scope of the design of the research which may impact on the credibility and trustworthiness of the interview of mini-project. As per data collection during the interview stage, a researcher needs to remove all elements of distraction from the site of data collection, attain a substantial level of preparedness, exercising of objectivity, and acting without biases, this should be occasioned by the need for self-reflection by researcher via reading the interview transcripts, and ensuring the labelling of special information within the transcript and coding are properly done in accordance with the research plan. Fostering credibility within the content of interview falls with the purview of the researcher; Koro-Ljungberg (2010) argues that a researcher is ultimately responsible for doing meaningful, trustworthy, and valid research; ensuring that interview is quality, credible, and trustworthy are built into the interview, design, site, data collection strategy, and coding should align with this intent from the beginning of the research. In other words, in the course of designing the research, interview, site for interview, interview process, and interview transcript, a research plan should have quality as a guiding factor. A research plan that lacks quality, trustworthiness, and credibility would fail to give the desired research outcome. Patton (2002, p. 552) re-affirmed that three distinct but related elements form the basis of a credible research; these are rigorous methods deployed during the field work, the research’s credibility, and the paradigm with regard to the value of the research inquiry. A tactical implementation of these elements in a qualitative research should enshrine quality, trust, and credibility in the research plan. Albeit, there exist divergent paradigms by value assumption about what is and not worth to investigate within the ambit of a research plan, however, there is need for research to progress on the basis of certain defined criteria while there should also be some reliable frameworks for judging quality (Hammersley, 2007). As per my personal opinion, I do think that having a pragmatic framework as a basis for defining trustworthiness, quality, and credibility are necessary; and these should form the pivotal platform that a researcher should leverage as evidence of quality vis-à-vis research evaluation.

References
Koro-Ljungberb, M. (2010). Validity, responsibility, and aporia. Qualitative inquiry, 16. doi: 10:1177/1077800410374034
Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International journal of research and method in education, 30(3), 287 – 305. Doi: 10.1080/17437270701614782.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(837). doi:10:1177/1077800410383121.