Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence

619 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 2003, received 619 indexed citations. Written by Liz Spencer, Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis and Lucy Dillon covering the research area of Education, Sociology and Political Science and Management Science and Operations Research. It is primarily cited by scholars working on General Health Professions (205 citations), Sociology and Political Science (172 citations) and Clinical Psychology (106 citations). Published in Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London).

In The Last Decade

doi.org/w57345844 →

Countries where authors are citing Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Quality in qualitative evaluation : a framework for assessing research evidence.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

This paper is also available at doi.org/w57345844.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026