This article discusses the evaluation criteria for qualitative research in healthcare. The authors identify seven key criteria for good qualitative research: ethical research, importance of the research, clarity and coherence of the research report, use of appropriate and rigorous methods, reflexivity or attention to researcher bias, establishing validity or credibility, and verification or reliability. While there is general agreement on the first four criteria, there is significant divergence in how the last three should be applied, influenced by different research paradigms. The authors note that qualitative research is not a unified field and that most reviewers and grant evaluators are not qualitative experts. As a result, they may apply a generic set of criteria rather than those specific to the qualitative approach being evaluated. The authors emphasize the need for researchers and reviewers to understand the appropriate criteria for evaluating qualitative research within its theoretical and methodological framework. The article also discusses the challenges of evaluating qualitative research, including the difficulty of applying traditional quantitative standards. It highlights the importance of reflexivity, the recognition of researcher bias, and the use of techniques such as member checking, peer review, and external audits to enhance the credibility and reliability of qualitative research. However, the authors also note that some of these techniques may not always be effective in ensuring the quality of qualitative research. The article concludes that qualitative research requires a deep understanding of its theoretical foundation and methodological approach. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of qualitative research and the development of appropriate criteria for evaluating it. The authors argue that the search for a single set of criteria for good qualitative research is misguided, as qualitative research is diverse and complex, and requires different approaches depending on the context and methodology used.This article discusses the evaluation criteria for qualitative research in healthcare. The authors identify seven key criteria for good qualitative research: ethical research, importance of the research, clarity and coherence of the research report, use of appropriate and rigorous methods, reflexivity or attention to researcher bias, establishing validity or credibility, and verification or reliability. While there is general agreement on the first four criteria, there is significant divergence in how the last three should be applied, influenced by different research paradigms. The authors note that qualitative research is not a unified field and that most reviewers and grant evaluators are not qualitative experts. As a result, they may apply a generic set of criteria rather than those specific to the qualitative approach being evaluated. The authors emphasize the need for researchers and reviewers to understand the appropriate criteria for evaluating qualitative research within its theoretical and methodological framework. The article also discusses the challenges of evaluating qualitative research, including the difficulty of applying traditional quantitative standards. It highlights the importance of reflexivity, the recognition of researcher bias, and the use of techniques such as member checking, peer review, and external audits to enhance the credibility and reliability of qualitative research. However, the authors also note that some of these techniques may not always be effective in ensuring the quality of qualitative research. The article concludes that qualitative research requires a deep understanding of its theoretical foundation and methodological approach. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of qualitative research and the development of appropriate criteria for evaluating it. The authors argue that the search for a single set of criteria for good qualitative research is misguided, as qualitative research is diverse and complex, and requires different approaches depending on the context and methodology used.