| Course | MSW 507 Research Methods and Applications |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Qualitative study critique |
| Length | About 500 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 507 Week 7
Qualitative Study Critique of Promises I Can Keep: The Tradition Named First, a Purposive Sample Judged by Fit, How the Analysis Was Done and Reported, Credibility Through Long Fieldwork and Whether the Quotations Carry Their Categories
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 507: Research Methods and Applications
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Qualitative Study Critique of Promises I Can Keep: The Tradition Named First, a Purposive Sample Judged by Fit, How the Analysis Was Done and Reported, Credibility Through Long Fieldwork and Whether the Quotations Carry Their Categories
The Study
Edin and Kefalas (2005) asked why low-income women in poor neighborhoods so often have children before they marry, when middle-class women increasingly do the reverse. They interviewed 162 low-income single mothers, white, Black and Puerto Rican, across eight neighborhoods in and around Philadelphia, over several years of fieldwork.
The Tradition
This is an ethnographic interview study, not phenomenology or grounded theory. The authors aim to describe how mothers understand their choices within the conditions of their neighborhoods, so the study should be judged on depth of understanding and fit between sample and question, not on statistical generalization.
Sampling
The sample is purposive: low-income single mothers in poor neighborhoods, chosen across racial and ethnic groups. For the question asked, that fit is good. Its size is large for interview work, which allows comparison across groups. It cannot tell us how common each view is among all low-income mothers, and the authors do not claim it can.
Analysis
The book describes long interviews and time in the neighborhoods, but it says less about how coding proceeded, who coded and how categories were formed. That is common in books written for a general audience, yet it leaves a reader unable to judge whether the main categories, such as motherhood as a source of meaning, came from the data or from the authors' starting ideas.
Credibility
The strongest credibility evidence is prolonged engagement: the authors spent years in these neighborhoods and returned to participants. There is little report of member checking or of an audit trail. Braun and Clarke (2006) argue that qualitative analysis should state its procedures explicitly; by that standard the book is thinner than a journal article would be.
Quotations as Data
Most quotations carry their categories well. When a mother says that her child "saved" her from the streets, the quote supports the theme that children give meaning where other paths seem closed. A few quotations are vivid but describe single situations, and the reader cannot tell how typical they are.
Use for the Peer Group Study
The study suggests that young parents may value recognition as good parents more than instruction. That shapes my interview guide for the peer group study: I will ask what parents get from being with other parents, not only what they learned.
The critique also shapes how I will report my own interviews: I will describe how codes were formed and who coded, so a reader can judge what this book leaves hard to judge.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. University of California Press.
MSW 507 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
The seventh week asks for a critique of a qualitative study. Name the tradition before judging anything, since phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography and case study answer to different standards. Appraise sampling as purposive work, judged by fit to the question rather than size. Look closely at analysis: how coding proceeded, who did it and whether categories came from the data or arrived with a framework. Ask what the authors did for credibility, such as member checking, an audit trail or prolonged engagement, and discuss reflexivity where relevant. Treat quotations as data and ask whether each supports its category. Do not criticize a qualitative study for lacking numbers. End with what the study means for your question.
Inside the MSW 507 Week 7 example
The study section states the question about why low-income women have children before marriage and the sample of 162 single mothers across eight Philadelphia-area neighborhoods. The tradition is named as ethnographic interviewing, judged on depth and fit. Sampling is found well fitted and large for interview work, without claims about prevalence. The analysis section notes that coding and category formation are described lightly, as in many books for general readers. Credibility rests on years of engagement, with little member checking or audit trail when measured against Braun and Clarke (2006). Quotations mostly support their themes, though some vivid ones describe single cases. The last section uses the findings to shape interview questions about recognition in a peer group.
Where the points sit in the MSW 507 Week 7 rubric
Qualitative critiques are graded first on naming the tradition and judging by its standards. A critique that faults a qualitative study for a small sample or for having no statistics earns little. Sampling should be judged by fit. Faculty look closely at the analysis section: how coding was done and whether categories came from the data. Credibility strategies must be identified and weighed. Treating quotations as data is credited. Reflexivity, where relevant, adds depth. A link to the writer's own question completes the core. The study should be cited in APA form. Criticism should stay fair to what the authors set out to do.
Common MSW 507 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Qualitative critiques commonly apply quantitative standards, criticizing sample size or generalizability that the study never claimed. Another frequent gap is accepting themes without asking how they were formed. Some critiques also quote the study's most striking passages without asking whether they are typical. If your section assigns a different study, such as a phenomenology of caregivers or a grounded theory of service use, send the citation; we would name the tradition, judge sampling by fit, examine analysis and credibility, test quotations against their categories and link the study to your question. Reflexivity would be addressed where the authors' position shaped what they saw, and themes judged by how they were formed.
Get a MSW-507 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 7 instructions and the qualitative article you are working on, together with any critique framework your section supplies. A custom critique is written to that framework and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, and the first is free, with the appraisal of the analysis section written out rather than gestured at.
More MSW 507 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 507 Week 1: Research Question Post
- MSW 507 Week 2: ACE Study Article Critique
- MSW 507 Week 3: Literature Matrix Example
- MSW 507 Week 4: Research Design Memo
- MSW 507 Week 5: Sampling Plan Write-Up
- MSW 507 Week 6: Research Ethics Analysis
- MSW 507 Week 8: Research Proposal
- MSW 506 Week 7: Cosponsorship Advocacy Plan
- MSW 505 Week 7: Intervention Case Write-Up
- MSW 504 Week 7: Person-in-Environment Analysis
MSW 507 Week 7 questions, answered
Can I criticize a qualitative study for having no numbers?
No, and doing it is the fastest way to lose the week. The design was never trying to estimate how often something happens, so counting is not a standard it failed to meet. The equivalent criticisms are real and available: thin description, a theme resting on one participant, an analysis a reader cannot follow, or an interview guide that led people toward the answers reported.
What is reflexivity, and does it belong in the critique?
It is the researcher's account of their own position and its effect on what participants said and how it was read. In social work studies where the researcher has practiced in the setting, that account matters, and its absence is a legitimate criticism. Note whether the authors offer one, what it discloses, and whether their analytical choices look consistent with what they disclosed.
How do I judge whether the themes are trustworthy?
Work backwards from each theme to its evidence. A trustworthy theme rests on several participants rather than one memorable speaker, its quotations demonstrate the idea named above them, and negative cases are reported instead of dropped. Where the authors describe member checking or an audit trail, ask whether the description is detailed enough for another reader to picture it happening.
Where can I find a free MSW 507 Week 7 sample paper?
This page carries a complete MSW 507 Week 7 qualitative critique of Promises I Can Keep, judged by the standards of ethnographic interviewing.
What credibility evidence does the MSW 507 Week 7 sample find strongest?
Prolonged engagement, since the authors spent years in the neighborhoods, though the book reports little member checking or audit trail.