| Course | RES 6033 Qualitative Research Designs |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Trustworthiness and ethics plan |
| Length | 1,220 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Ed.D. and DBA doctoral core |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for RES 6033 Module 4
Can Readers Trust What Rural Hospital Leaders Told Me? A Trustworthiness and Ethics Plan for a Multiple Case Study of Obstetric Unit Decisions
Student Name
American College of Education
RES6033: Qualitative Research Designs
Module 4 Assignment
Instructor Name
November 2, 2026
Introduction
Over three modules I have chosen a case study design for rural labor and delivery decisions, drafted the interview protocol and practiced coding. Two questions remain before the proposal. Why should a reader trust the findings, given that they rest on a few people's accounts and my interpretation of them? And how will the study protect participants who are, in many cases, my professional peers, in communities small enough that a detail can identify a speaker? This paper answers both, using the four criteria of trustworthiness and the ethical risks particular to this study.
Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research
Qualitative research does not claim the statistical reliability or generalizability of quantitative studies, so it is judged by different standards. Korstjens and Moser (2018), summarizing the criteria Lincoln and Guba proposed, described four: credibility, whether the findings fairly represent what participants said and lived; transferability, how far the findings might hold in other settings; dependability, whether the findings would stay steady across time and conditions; and confirmability, how far the findings rest on the data instead of on the researcher's preferences. They also named reflexivity as a thread running through all four. Each criterion below is paired with specific strategies.
Credibility
Three strategies support credibility. The first is triangulation across sources. A case study gathers documents alongside interviews, and in this study board minutes, financial analyses and staffing records can confirm or complicate what leaders recall. If a chief executive describes the decision as driven by finances but the minutes show months of discussion about losing the only surgeon, the difference becomes data. Triangulation across participants adds a second layer, since each case includes executives, board members and clinicians who saw the decision from different places.
The second strategy is member checking, used with care. Birt et al. (2016) criticized the common practice of simply returning transcripts to participants, which mainly checks accuracy, and described synthesized member checking, in which participants receive a summary of the interpreted findings months after the interview and are invited to comment and add to them. I will send each participant a two-page summary of the themes for their case and ask whether it fits their experience, recording agreement, disagreement and additions. When a leader rejects the summary, the method has not broken down; the disagreement itself becomes a finding to report.
The third strategy is peer debriefing. An outside methodologist, a qualitative researcher from another university's nursing school, will review my coding of one interview from each case and my cross-case memos, questioning interpretations that seem to go beyond the data.
Transferability
Transferability is judged by the reader, who needs enough detail to decide whether findings fit another setting. The study will provide thick description of each case: the hospital's size and ownership, its distance to the nearest hospital offering deliveries, its annual births, the size of its medical staff, the county's population and the timeline of the decision. Drawing cases from both outcomes and from several Plains states will also show the range of conditions the findings cover. A leader in a 25-bed hospital in Nebraska should be able to read the report and judge which case resembles her own.
Dependability and Confirmability
Both criteria rest on a clear record. The audit trail begun in Module 3 will include the protocol and each revision, interview recordings and transcripts, the codebook with definitions and change history, analytic memos, photographs of code sorts, case summaries and cross-case matrices. Another researcher should be able to follow the path from any theme back to the excerpts and documents that support it. Confirmability also depends on showing that themes rest on evidence, so each theme in the final report will be supported by quotations from more than one participant and, where possible, by a document.
Reflexivity
My position is the study's greatest asset and its greatest risk. As an executive who has closed an obstetric unit, I understand the pressures participants describe, and they may speak more openly to someone who has been there. I may also hear my own story in theirs. A reflexive journal, begun before the first interview, records my expectations, my reactions after each interview and moments when I notice myself agreeing too quickly. The final report will include a positionality statement so readers can weigh my interpretations knowing where I stand.
When Strategies Fall Short
Each strategy can fail, and the plan says what happens then. If a hospital will not share board minutes, its case will rest on interviews alone, and the report will say so and weigh that case's findings accordingly; Nowell et al. (2017) stressed that readers can judge rigor only when such decisions are reported openly. If participants do not respond to the member-checking summary, a single reminder will follow, and nonresponse will be recorded rather than treated as agreement. If the peer debriefer and I disagree about a theme, both readings will be recorded in the audit trail and the theme will be tested against the next case before it is kept.
Ethical Issues: Studying Peers
Participants are leaders of hospitals that may compete with mine for patients and staff, and some will know me. Two risks follow. Participants may fear that what they tell me could be used against their hospital, and I may learn information of competitive value. The consent form will state that the study is conducted as doctoral research, not on behalf of my employer, that nothing learned will be shared with my hospitals and that my employer has no access to the data. I will not recruit from any hospital with which my system is negotiating an affiliation or contract during the study period.
Ethical Issues: Confidentiality in Small Places
Rural hospitals are easy to identify. A report describing a 20-bed hospital in western Kansas that closed its birthing unit in 2023 after its last surgeon retired may point to a single facility. The thick description that serves transferability can therefore threaten confidentiality. The study will resolve this tension by reporting hospital characteristics in ranges rather than exact figures, by not naming states for individual cases and by giving each participant the chance to review any quotation attributed to their role. If a participant asks that a detail be removed, it will be, even at some cost to description.
Ethical Issues: Board Documents
Board minutes and financial analyses may be confidential. Each hospital's chief executive will sign a data use agreement specifying which documents are shared, how they will be stored and that they will be destroyed after the study. Documents will be cited in the report only in general terms, such as board minutes from a given quarter, and no financial figures that could identify a hospital will be published.
Conclusion
Credibility rests on triangulation across documents and roles, synthesized member checking and peer debriefing; transferability on thick but protected description; dependability and confirmability on an audit trail; and reflexivity on a journal and positionality statement. The ethical plan addresses studying peers, confidentiality in small communities and the use of board documents. Module 5 combines these elements into the qualitative proposal. Throughout, the aim is a study whose readers can see how each finding was reached.
References
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Reading the RES 6033 Module 4 instructions
In RES 6033's fourth module, students usually plan how their qualitative study will earn a reader's trust and protect participants. Expect to explain the trustworthiness criteria, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, and name specific strategies for each, such as triangulation, member checking, thick description and an audit trail. Reflexivity and a positionality statement are commonly required as well. The ethics portion asks you to identify risks particular to your study and setting, not only general principles. The strongest papers notice where trustworthiness and ethics pull against each other and explain how they will balance the two. Some instructors also ask what happens if a strategy cannot be carried out.
How this RES 6033 Module 4 example is built
The paper first sets out the four trustworthiness criteria and reflexivity from a practical guide to qualitative rigor. Credibility gets three strategies: triangulation across documents and roles, synthesized member checking that tests interpretation rather than transcripts and peer debriefing. Transferability rests on thick description of each case, and dependability and confirmability on an audit trail and multi-source support for themes. A reflexivity section addresses the researcher's own history of closing a unit and the journal that tracks it. Ethics sections cover studying peers and competitors, the tension between thick description and confidentiality and the handling of board documents. A section on what happens when strategies fall short comes before the ethics sections.
Reading the RES 6033 Module 4 rubric
Trustworthiness papers are generally scored on accurate explanation of the criteria, specific strategies matched to each, attention to reflexivity and ethical risks tied to the actual study. Graders tend to reward strategies described in enough detail to be carried out, such as what member checking will involve and when, over lists of terms. Recognizing tensions, such as thick description versus confidentiality, and resolving them shows depth. An ethics section that addresses the researcher's relationships with participants and the sensitivity of the setting, supported by current methodological sources, earns the top band on most rubrics. Saying what will happen if a strategy fails, such as missing documents, shows honest, practical planning.
RES 6033 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Trustworthiness sections often list credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability with one strategy each and no detail about how they will work. If planning member checking, writing a positionality statement or protecting participants in a small community feels out of reach, one of our qualitative writers can work through it with you. Explain your design and setting along with the prompt, and the plan we write will fit your own study's risks. Clinic, hospital and workplace studies face similar issues of trust and confidentiality. Tensions between rigor and confidentiality are addressed directly and openly. Backup plans for strategies that might fail are included, so your committee sees the study can still be judged fairly.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More RES 6033 and Ed.D. and DBA doctoral core sample papers
- RES 6033 Module 1: Qualitative Designs Paper
- RES 6033 Module 2: Interview Protocol Paper
- RES 6033 Module 3: Coding and Themes Paper
- RES 6033 Module 5: Qualitative Design Proposal
- LEAD 6163 Module 3: Faculty Development Plan
- RES 6041 Module 5: Synthesized Literature Review
- RES 6302 Module 1: Defense Presentation Outline
- LEAD 6001 Module 4: Models of Inquiry Comparison
RES 6033 Module 4 questions, answered
What does RES6033 Module 4 usually ask for?
The fourth RES6033 module typically asks you to plan how your qualitative study will establish trustworthiness and protect participants, often using Lincoln and Guba's criteria and ethical principles.
What are the four trustworthiness criteria?
Credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, often discussed together with reflexivity.
Is sending transcripts back enough for member checking?
It checks accuracy but not interpretation. Sharing a summary of themes and inviting comments tests whether findings fit participants' experience.
Where can I find a free RES 6033 Module 4 sample paper?
The Module 4 plan on this page is complete: rigor strategies and ethical safeguards for research with fellow hospital executives in small towns.
How do I keep rural participants confidential?
Report characteristics in ranges, avoid naming small places, remove identifying details from quotations and let participants review what is attributed to them.