This article opens with a problematisation of how one can meaningfully discuss the concept of quality in a methodology as notoriously ‘murky’ as narrative research. Unlike other kinds of qualitative approaches, there is a lack of consensus of what constitutes narrative, much less a clearly prescribed protocol for ascertaining evaluation. It then proceeds by outlining three features of narrative research (the importance of stories, the ‘messy’ nature of the data, and the attention to temporality), and then provides a close reading of an extract of an interview with a political activist who describes how she made her decision to break the law. Finally, drawing on the previous discussion, there is a non-exhaustive checklist of quality indicators for narrative research.

本文首先提出了一个问题，那就是人们如何才能像叙事研究那样臭名昭著地“模糊”地使用一种方法论来有意义地讨论质量的概念。与其他类型的定性方法不同，对于叙事的构成缺乏共识，更不用说明确规定确定评估的协议了。然后，它概述了叙事研究的三个特征（故事的重要性，数据的“混乱”性质以及对时间性的关注），然后仔细阅读了一位政治活动家的访谈摘录，其中描述了她是如何做出违法决定的。最后，在前面的讨论的基础上，有一个非详尽的叙事研究质量指标清单。