1st column - Number	2nd column Selected elements of transparent qualitative writing to look for	3rd column Qualitative extracts from published peer-reviewed literature (link to original paper)
1	Appropriate sampling for the study topic/designAppropriate sampling for the study topic/design	A. Our research questions break down and refine the research aim, which is to explore methods that are used to empirically investigate CE with brands on social media in the marketing literature and how the methods have evolved over time. To address the research aim, following research questions have been formulated: what methods are used to investigate CE with brands on social media? how the methods used to investigate CE with brands on social media have changed over time? how the methods have shaped the way the research on CE on social media has evolved? how the evolution of research methods will impact the way we investigate CE on social media in the future? The research questions served as a basis for determination of inclusion and exclusion criteria for the types of studies that need to be located https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2059799120985384?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider Links to an external site.
2	Consent	B. Positionality locates the researcher in relation to the study subject, the participants, and the research process and context. Demarcating such interactions between researcher, methodology, settings, and participants is required. Ranahan's personal and professional experiences with the issues being studied and prior knowledge of the context offered ease of access to the small community's culture and understanding of colloquial language and suicide prevention discourse. Indeed, participants may be more willing to engage in the interview if they perceive the researcher as empathic to their experiences. Having shared experiences with suicide, loss, and precarious living, Ranahan was sensitized to explore nuances, probe efficiently and compassionately. Common ground may sensitize, yet also limit the stories shared, suicide talk produced, if analysis was directed by personal experiences https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13634593211060767
3	Researcher reflection on personal experiences	C. Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8
4	Credibility	D. Situations where a re-consent process may be considered include those where an initial broad consent cannot defensibly be relied upon because of features of proposed future use are sufficiently novel or mark a significant departure from the terms on which the consent was originally given; where an initial specific consent does not cover a future intended use; where proposed modifications to projects appear to be beyond the scope of the original consent; where it is proposed to revisit a group of participants for whom a study has been dormant for some time, or when paediatric participants reach adulthood https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-017-0182-0 Links to an external site.
5	Triangulation	E. In this study, data were collected by expert interviews. The knowledge production in an expert interview is not created from society or societal practice as a social construction; it is constructed through the interaction with the expert networks and knowledge bodies. After the interviews were transcribed, member checks were carried out whereby the researchers sought to clarify any discrepancy regarding the interviews by contacting the respondents in person, through text messages or phone calls. This helped in establishing the credibility of the study. Furthermore, during the coding process, the researchers read and reread the raw transcripts to maintain an accurate understanding. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3624&context=tqr
6	Stating the approach	F. Contextual factors and interventions influence each other. Furthermore, it recognizes that improvement often can be viewed as "facilitated evolution". When researching quality improvement, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that interventions work. To facilitate the dissemination of improvements, we also need to understand why and how interventions work in particular settings, and the social mechanisms behind the interventions. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1472-6963-14-215
7	Contextual information	G. To ensure methodological rigour and trustworthiness of the study, longitudinal interviews with the same participants (triangulation of data sources) were collected. Repeated listening to the audio recordings and re-reading of transcripts allowed for familiarisation of both structure and content of the narrative accounts. The study data were initially organised into an overarching descriptive narrative for each couple. This helps to get a sense of the whole before going into more detail of the main chapters and stories. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/16094069211060653
8	Researcher paradigm	H. A qualitative phenomenological study was chosen to describe and understand the experiences of nurses within complex PC situations. This report were guided by COREQ. https://bmcpalliatcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12904-020-0536-0
9	A clear research question/s	I. I support a Constructivist paradigm as a researcher and as a teacher. Lincoln and Guba (2000) state that this view includes a relativist ontology, a transactional and subjectivist epistemology, and a hermeneutical and dialectical approach to methodology. I believe that researchers do their best work when they operate within the paradigm that is consistent with their beliefs and when they pursue questions that are of real and personal interest. My intent was not to convert any student to an exclusive acceptance of qualitative methods or rejection of quantitative methods, but to encourage them to ask questions about their own research identities and to locate personally and professionally important questions. I hoped that they would create a research identity that would allow maximum flexibility in their research options. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1881&context=tqr
10	Using a theoretical framework to guide the research	J. Participatory research draws on local knowledge and emphasizes the involvement of non-academics. In particular, it seeks to mobilize and build upon the expertise of those whose lives are directly affected by the research issue.... The recruiting process is generally similar to that in most studies using respondent-driven sampling (RDS), with the following differences: In most RDS studies, peer recruiters receive coupons with serial numbers and contact information for the research project, which they distribute to their recruits. In PDR studies that include group discussion or educational sessions, participants may have opportunities to discuss and/or role-play recruiting techniques. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1705484/

Transparency of writing in qualitative research

INSTRUCTIONS

Review Table 1, which provides:

• Selected elements of transparent qualitative writing from published literature (for example "consent"), there are ten elements, numbered [1] to [10]; and
• Ten illustrations of actual text from publications as examples of transparent writing in qualitative literature (A through to J).

Please note, the information is Table 1 is NOT necessarily matched up already - this is now your job, using the boxes below the Table to record your answers.

For each of the 10 itemised rows, you are required to record what you identify as 'matching pairs', with a number ([1] to [10]) corresponding to the correct letter (A to J).

There is one mark for each correct match, up to a maximum of 10 points (which makes up to 20% of the overall course grade).