The most discussed validity criteria of qualitative research, namely realistic, constructionist, critical, aesthetical and radical ones are analysed in this paper. Modern research does not only introduce specific concepts of validity, but it also strives to conceptually replace this criterion by another.

In the realistic system the validity is discussed from the point of view of the interpretative argumentation. The constructionist criteria assume refusal of classical validity criteria, new criteria, i.e. “trustworthiness” and “authenticity”, are introduced. The critical criteria emphasize social value and usefulness, a critical component of the research, its inclusiveness in the context of social and cultural changes.

Aesthetical criteria equate quality of the analysis and the expressiveness, polyphony of the collected data, the representation of the various subjective positions in the study. The radical system, following the logics of radical constructionism and methodological anarchism, refuses a definite standard of quality research. Summing up, we conclude that the so-called “subjective” view of the researcher is not an artifact of the analysis, but its key epistemological tool. The issue of validity is the problem of critical reflexivity of the researchers and positions of their respondents. In conclusion, we suggest the original validity criteria of qualitative research in psychology based on the theoretical analysis of various criteria and practical experience.

The general principle of these original criteria is a relation of criteria and various levels (or stages) of qualitative research: research design, data collection and analysis, and data interpretation.