Critiquing Qualitative Research

jobando; ffehr; gregsonk19; stavingai23

Critiquing Qualitative Research

Introducing the Research Critique

In this section, you will move from learning about qualitative research to actively engaging with it. Reading research is not a passive activity; it is a deliberate and analytical process. As you review the published study below, you will practice examining how the research question was framed, how the methodology aligned with the study’s purpose, how data were collected and analyzed, and how trustworthiness and ethical considerations were addressed. Rather than asking, “Do I agree with the findings?”, you will ask deeper questions: Was this the appropriate design? Were participants’ voices represented authentically? Were limitations acknowledged transparently?

Critiquing qualitative research strengthens your ability to appraise evidence thoughtfully and apply it responsibly in practice. The goal is not to find fault, but to understand rigor, coherence, and the contribution the study makes to nursing knowledge.

Tip from Ime: Reading with Integrity

You may notice something unique about this chapter, the study you are critiquing includes one of your textbook authors.

This is intentional.

Scholarship invites transparency. Research should be strong enough to be examined, questioned, and thoughtfully critiqued — even by students.

As you read, I encourage you to:

Approach the study with curiosity rather than judgment.
Look for strengths in methodological alignment.
Identify areas that could be clearer or expanded.
Consider how context and timing influence research design.

Critiquing research is not about discrediting authors. It is about strengthening your ability to evaluate evidence with integrity.

Every published study, including this one, reflects decisions, constraints, and evolving knowledge. Your role as a developing nurse scholar is to examine those decisions thoughtfully.

That is how professions grow.

How to Critique a Qualitative Study

Dr. Fehr Tip:

Remember: A strong critique examines rigor and alignment, not whether you personally “like” the topic.

As you read, use the following guiding questions:

Purpose & Research Question

Is the purpose clearly stated?
Is a qualitative approach appropriate for the research question?
Does the study aim to explore experiences, meanings, or processes?

Methodology & Design

Is the chosen qualitative methodology clearly identified (e.g., phenomenology, grounded theory, thematic analysis)?
Is there alignment between the research question and the design?
Do the authors explain why this approach was selected?

Sampling & Participants

Who participated and how were they recruited?
Is the sampling strategy appropriate (e.g., purposive, convenience)?
Is there enough description to understand the context?

Data Collection

What methods were used (interviews, focus groups, observations)?
Are procedures clearly described?
Is reflexivity acknowledged (i.e., how researchers may influence data)?

Data Analysis

How were themes or findings generated?
Is the analytic process transparent and systematic?
Are participant quotes used to support interpretations?

Trustworthiness

Do the authors address credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability?
Were strategies such as member checking, triangulation, or audit trails used?

Ethics

Was ethics approval obtained?
Were participant confidentiality and safety addressed?
Is the study respectful and culturally sensitive?

Findings & Implications

Are findings clearly presented?
Do conclusions logically follow the data?
What are the implications for nursing practice or policy?
Are limitations acknowledged?

Qualitative Study to Critique:

Fehr, F. C., Lo, L. A., Nelson, C. C., Diehl, L., & Walsh, Z. (2025). Medical Cannabis use adjunct to standard of care in a residential substance use recovery Program: a pilot study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.24-00224

Authors

This study by Florriann C. Fehr, Lindsay A. Lo, Christopher C. Nelson, Lauren Diehl, and Zach Walsh, was published in 2025. The authors represent diverse academic backgrounds in nursing, medicine, and psychology, with affiliations to Thompson Rivers University, Queen’s University, and the University of British Columbia. This interdisciplinary collaboration is particularly relevant because it brings together clinical, therapeutic, and research expertise to explore the integration of medical cannabis as a harm reduction strategy in substance use treatment. Given the ongoing opioid crisis and evolving policies around cannabis, this research provides timely evidence that is valuable to nursing and allied health professionals seeking to implement holistic, client-centered, and evidence-informed approaches to recovery.

Title

Medical Cannabis use adjunct to standard of care in a residential substance use recovery Program: a pilot study.

Abstract

The abstract provides a clear summary of the study, outlining the rationale, participant groups, methods, and major findings. It briefly mentions the use of qualitative interviews and thematic analysis, although it could have been improved by explicitly naming the research design and providing more detail about the method of analysis.

Problem Statement and Purpose

The problem is well articulated: current abstinence-based recovery models may not serve all individuals, especially those who find benefit in harm-reduction approaches such as medical cannabis. The purpose of the study which is to explore the experiences of clients and staff involved in a residential program offering cannabis as an adjunct to care is clear, timely, and highly relevant in the context of ongoing opioid and substance use crises.

Literature Review

The background section presents a comprehensive overview of existing research on medical cannabis use in recovery and highlights both its potential benefits and limitations. It includes relevant studies addressing mental health, chronic pain, and substance substitution. While informative, the literature review could have been strengthened by more explicitly identifying a specific gap that this pilot study aimed to fill.

Theoretical Framework

No explicit theoretical or philosophical framework is identified. Although not always necessary in exploratory studies, grounding the research in a specific qualitative tradition (such as phenomenology or grounded theory) could have provided a clearer lens through which to interpret the findings.

Methodology

The study uses a qualitative, naturalistic design appropriate for exploring lived experiences. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 14 clients and 7 staff members, allowing for deep, descriptive data. The use of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke’s method) is appropriate and well-executed, with multiple researchers involved in coding and reviewing themes to ensure consistency and credibility.

Sample and Setting

The sample included 21 participants from a supportive residential recovery program. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated, and the setting was described in detail, including how the medical cannabis program was implemented. The sample size is reasonable for a pilot qualitative study, though the findings are limited in generalizability due to the homogeneity and small size of the group.

Data Collection

Data collection was systematic and clearly documented. Interviews were conducted at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-ups by trained graduate students using consistent interview guides. However, the study did not incorporate other data sources like observation or participant journaling, which could have enriched the findings through methodological triangulation.

Data Analysis

Thematic analysis followed a clear, structured process. Initial codes were developed inductively, and themes were refined collaboratively by the research team. The use of direct participant quotes supports the transparency and trustworthiness of the findings. However, the study does not provide examples of codebooks or analytic decisions, which would enhance transparency.

Findings

The findings were organized into meaningful themes, including the perceived multimodal benefits of medical cannabis (e.g., relief from pain, mental health symptoms, sleep issues, and cravings), stigma from peers and staff, and medication use changes. These findings are supported by participant quotes and align with known issues in harm reduction care, adding depth and practical insight.

Limitations

The study’s limitations are acknowledged, including the small sample size, high attrition rate, short follow-up, and lack of standardized cannabis use data, all of which limit generalizability. While response bias is briefly mentioned, the authors do not fully explore how participant relationships or social desirability may have influenced findings. Key qualitative rigor strategies like member checking, reflexivity, and audit trails are not addressed. Though appropriate for a pilot study, the limitations could be more critically presented with clearer implications for future research.

Rigour/Trustworthiness

Credibility was supported through researcher triangulation and use of participant quotes. However, the study would have benefitted from member checking, peer debriefing, or prolonged engagement to enhance trustworthiness. Transferability is limited due to the specific setting and population, but detailed descriptions of the context help readers assess relevance to their own settings. Confirmability is moderately supported through the use of a structured analytic process, though no audit trail or reflexivity statement is provided. Dependability is evident in the clear documentation of procedures and timing, but challenges such as participant attrition and variation in program engagement could affect consistency.

Ethical Considerations

The study received ethics approval from both Thompson Rivers University and the University of British Columbia-Okanagan. Informed consent was obtained, and participants were compensated, demonstrating respect for participants and adherence to ethical standards.

Implications for Nursing
This study holds strong relevance for the nursing profession, particularly in the fields of mental health, addictions, and community health nursing. Nurses play a key role in harm reduction, client education, and advocacy for individualized care plans. The study demonstrates how medical cannabis, when integrated into a supportive recovery program, may serve as an adjunct to conventional therapies by addressing symptoms such as pain, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and substance cravings. This aligns with nursing’s holistic approach to care. Additionally, the findings highlight the importance of trauma-informed and nonjudgmental nursing care, especially as nurses may need to address stigma and misinformation regarding cannabis use. The study encourages nurses to remain informed, culturally competent, and open to evolving evidence-based interventions that meet clients “where they are at,” which is central to ethical and person-centered practice in addiction nursing.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable preliminary insights into the integration of medical cannabis in residential substance use recovery. While the study is limited by its small sample size and lack of long-term follow-up, it offers a thoughtful, well-organized exploration of client and staff experiences. Strengths include its practical relevance, strong data collection procedures, and attention to participant voices. Areas for improvement include the addition of a guiding framework, more rigorous strategies to ensure trustworthiness, and a clearer plan for long-term evaluation. Nonetheless, this pilot project lays important groundwork for future research and supports innovation in holistic, harm-reduction-oriented nursing care.

Understanding Pilot Study Limitations

It is important to recognize that pilot studies are preliminary investigations designed to test feasibility, refine methods, and identify potential challenges before a larger-scale study is conducted. Because their primary goal is exploration rather than definitive conclusions, pilot studies often involve small sample sizes, limited generalizability, and evolving procedures. Findings should therefore be interpreted cautiously. However, these limitations do not diminish their value. Pilot studies play a critical role in strengthening future research by identifying methodological adjustments, clarifying recruitment strategies, and generating early insights that inform larger, more rigorous investigations.

A Critique of the Study

The authors of this study represent diverse professional backgrounds in nursing, psychology, and medicine, with affiliations to Thompson Rivers University, Queen’s University, and the University of British Columbia. This interdisciplinary collaboration enhances the study’s credibility, as it brings together multiple perspectives that are valuable in addressing complex issues such as substance use recovery. At the same time, it is important to question whether the authors’ professional or research interests may introduce bias, especially given the controversial nature of medical cannabis research. Transparency about potential conflicts of interest would strengthen the trustworthiness of the work.

The title of the study is clear and descriptive, indicating that medical cannabis was studied as an adjunct to standard care in a residential program and noting that this is a pilot study. However, the phrasing “adjunct to standard of care” may suggest stronger evidence than a qualitative pilot project can reasonably provide. Furthermore, the title does not indicate that the research is qualitative, which could mislead readers who expect quantitative outcome data.

The abstract provides a concise overview of the rationale, participant groups, and findings, which helps readers quickly grasp the focus of the study. However, it does not explicitly name the qualitative design, nor does it describe the analytic process in detail. Including this information would have given readers a clearer understanding of the study’s methodological approach. The abstract also emphasizes positive findings without adequately balancing them against limitations, which could leave readers with an overly optimistic impression of the results.

The problem statement and purpose are articulated clearly. The authors highlight the limitations of abstinence-only recovery models and position medical cannabis as a possible harm reduction tool. This framing is timely given the opioid crisis. Nevertheless, the problem statement seems to lean toward a positive view of cannabis use without fully addressing potential risks or controversies. A more balanced framing would have presented the study as an exploration rather than a subtle endorsement of cannabis in recovery programs.

The literature review provides a broad overview of medical cannabis use, with references to studies on chronic pain, mental health, and substance substitution. While comprehensive, the review primarily summarizes existing work rather than critically evaluating its quality. Additionally, it does not clearly identify the gap this study intends to fill. Highlighting contradictions in the literature or under-researched populations would have better justified the need for this pilot project.

One notable limitation of the study is the lack of an explicit theoretical framework. While exploratory qualitative studies can proceed without one, grounding the work in a specific tradition such as phenomenology or harm reduction theory could have strengthened the interpretive lens. A theoretical framework would have provided readers with a clearer sense of how the authors approached data interpretation and why certain findings were emphasized.

The methodology is described as a qualitative naturalistic design, with semi-structured interviews conducted with clients and staff. This design is appropriate for exploring lived experiences, and the use of multiple coders to analyze data adds credibility. However, the authors do not discuss whether data saturation was reached, nor do they mention reflexivity, which is crucial in qualitative research. A reflexivity statement acknowledging the researchers’ positions would have strengthened transparency, particularly in a study where researcher attitudes toward cannabis could influence interpretation.

The sample and setting are described thoroughly, with 21 participants drawn from a supportive residential recovery program. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clear, and the implementation of the medical cannabis program is well explained. While the sample size is acceptable for a pilot qualitative study, its homogeneity and small scale limit transferability. Moreover, the participants who agreed to take part may already have had favorable attitudes toward cannabis, raising the possibility of selection bias.

Data collection was systematic and conducted at baseline, one month, and three months. Using trained graduate students and structured guides supports consistency. However, the reliance on interviews alone limits depth. Incorporating triangulation methods such as observations or participant journaling could have enriched the data. Furthermore, the three-month follow-up period may not have been sufficient to capture long-term experiences in recovery.

Thematic analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s method, which is appropriate for the data. The authors clearly describe their process and use participant quotes to support themes, enhancing credibility. Nevertheless, the absence of details about coding decisions, codebooks, or consideration of negative cases weakens transparency. The use of qualitative analysis software is not mentioned, which raises questions about how data management was handled.

The findings are organized into themes that reflect both benefits and challenges of cannabis use in recovery, including pain relief, mental health improvement, stigma, and medication changes. Participant quotes add authenticity and give voice to those in recovery. However, the presentation emphasizes benefits more strongly than drawbacks, which could give the impression of advocacy rather than exploration. A more balanced discussion of positive and negative experiences would have strengthened the findings.

The limitations are acknowledged, including small sample size, attrition, short follow-up, and the lack of standardized cannabis use data. These are valid, but the discussion of limitations could have been more critical. For instance, attrition was noted but not analyzed, if participants who dropped out had different experiences than those who stayed, the findings could be skewed. Response bias and social desirability are briefly mentioned but not explored in depth, despite being particularly relevant in a stigmatized setting like substance recovery.

The discussion of rigour and trustworthiness identifies credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Researcher triangulation and the use of quotes enhance credibility, but the absence of member checking, peer debriefing, or an audit trail weakens dependability and confirmability. Reflexivity, again, is missing, and without it, readers cannot fully assess how researcher positions shaped the analysis.

The ethical considerations are handled well, with approval from ethics boards at two institutions and informed consent obtained from all participants. Compensation was provided, showing respect for participant time. However, in a vulnerable population such as individuals in recovery, compensation may risk coercion. Additionally, in a small residential setting, confidentiality concerns could arise but are not discussed in depth.

The implications for nursing are well articulated, with connections made to harm reduction, holistic care, and the importance of nonjudgmental nursing practice. Nurses are positioned as key advocates for trauma-informed care and client-centered approaches. While this is valuable, the discussion risks overstating the significance of the findings. Given that this is a small pilot study, practice recommendations should be framed cautiously as preliminary insights rather than established evidence.

Finally, the conclusion highlights the strengths of the study and acknowledges its limitations. It appropriately positions the project as groundwork for future research. Still, the conclusion leans toward endorsing cannabis integration into recovery programs more strongly than the data justify. A more cautious framing, emphasizing hypothesis generation rather than practice change, would align better with the exploratory nature of the study.

Qualitative Rigor

Credibility
Credibility refers to the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings from the perspective of the participants. In this study, credibility was supported through several strategies, including data triangulation (collecting data from both clients and staff), and researcher triangulation, with multiple authors independently analyzing and reviewing the themes. Thematic analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s six-step framework, and participant quotes were used to substantiate findings, strengthening the authenticity of the data. However, credibility could have been improved by incorporating member checking, where participants review and validate the researchers’ interpretations. Additionally, the study lacked evidence of prolonged engagement or peer debriefing, which may limit the depth of understanding and verification of findings. Despite these limitations, the consistency of themes across participants and the diverse perspectives provided by clients and staff enhance the overall trustworthiness of the results.

Transferability
Transferability refers to the extent to which the findings of a study can be applied to other contexts or settings. Fehr et al. (2025) provided rich, detailed descriptions of the setting, participant demographics, program structure, cannabis dosing regimens, and educational components, which help readers determine the applicability to their own settings. The researchers were transparent in acknowledging that the pilot program was small, highly structured, and involved a specific population of clients who were already familiar with cannabis use. These characteristics limit broad generalizability but support situational or contextual transferability. Practitioners or researchers working in similar harm reduction or recovery settings may find the results useful. However, because the study took place in a unique residential program with rolling admissions and specific inclusion criteria, its findings may not be directly applicable to abstinence-only models or diverse populations.

Confirmability
Confirmability focuses on the degree to which the findings are shaped by the participants’ input rather than researcher bias or assumptions. The authors used an inductive approach to thematic analysis, allowing themes to emerge directly from participant data. Multiple researchers participated in data coding and review, which enhances objectivity. The study also included participant quotes to support key themes, demonstrating that interpretations were grounded in the data. However, the absence of a reflexive account, where researchers critically examine their roles, beliefs, and influence on the data, limits insight into potential biases. There was also no mention of an audit trail or external audit, and the coding decisions and analysis framework were not fully disclosed in the publication. While the collaborative analysis process adds some transparency, more explicit steps to document and justify analytical decisions would have further strengthened confirmability.

Dependability
Dependability refers to the consistency and reliability of the study findings over time and under similar conditions. The authors documented their research design, data collection procedures, and analytic process in a clear and traceable manner, which supports methodological rigor. Interviews were conducted at scheduled intervals (baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-ups), and interview guides were standardized across participants. The study used trained graduate students to collect data, which likely contributed to consistency. However, the variability in participant program duration, high attrition rate, and individualized cannabis treatments introduced inconsistencies that may affect the dependability of results. Additionally, the absence of a formal audit trail or replication procedures makes it difficult to evaluate whether the study could be repeated with similar results. Despite these limitations, the structured approach and transparency in reporting suggest a reasonable degree of dependability for a pilot qualitative study.

Media Attributions

Dr. Fehr [avatar] by Research Assistant Katie Gregson on Canva using Canva AI image creation https://www.canva.com/ai-assistant/ is subject to the Canva Pro Content License.
Ime [avatar] by Research Assistant Katie Gregson on Canva using Canva AI image creation https://www.canva.com/ai-assistant/ is subject to the Canva Pro Content License.

References