CREDIBILITY

The credibility of research findings is a measure of the confidence that a researcher has adequately captured the occurring realities of the respondents on an interesting phenomenon in the context being studied (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In other words, credibility is the evidence that testifies the findings can be trusted (Liamputtong, 2009). Lincoln and Guba suggest five major techniques to enhance credibility: 1) indicating the activities increased the probability that credible findings will be represented: a) by demonstrating a prolonged period of engagement in the field or going native to learn the context and establish trust, leading to the ability to detect and minimise distortions that might otherwise creep into data; b) by providing evidence of persistent observation for identifying the influential and contextual characteristics and elements in the situation that are most relevant to the interesting phenomenon and focusing on them in details; and c) by presenting the different modes of triangulation—the use of multiple and different sources, methods, investigators, and theories. 2) providing the evidence of external checking on the research processes (peer debriefing) for exploring aspects of the research that might otherwise remain only implicit within the researcher‘s mind; 3) presenting the negative case analysis—a process of revising hypotheses with outlying cases for refining hypotheses until they account for all known cases without exception; 4) making possible checking preliminary findings and interpretations against archived raw data; and 5) providing the study participants with data, interpretations, and preliminary findings, in order that they can verify or further provide their own realities

90 based on their experience.

Moreover, Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggested the criteria for evaluating the empirical grounding of grounded theory findings or creative aspect credibility of grounded theory. These include meeting the following questions: 1) Are concepts generated from the study? 2) Are the concepts systematically developed and linked to others? 3) Are there many conceptual linkages, and are the categories tightly linked? Do categories have conceptual density or many properties that are dimensionalised? 4) Is variation built into the theory? or has a concept been examined under a series of different conditions and developed across its range of dimensions? 5) Does the explanation of variation include the conditions and consequences? 6) Has process been taken into account of analysis? 7) Do the theoretical findings deliver new information or offer new insights or explanations, and to what extent? 8) Have the major concepts of the findings proven their usefulness although the specific results associated with them may have been modified and changed with time?

In regard to the above, I confirm that I could capture the occurring realities of the nursing students about how they had learned to be professional nurses for a number of reasons. The first was that I took a prolonged period, around seven months, to engage in the field. This let me to fully learn the context and establish trust from the participants, leading to the ability to detect and minimise distortions that might otherwise have crept into the data (Liamputtong, 2009; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). During this period, I could also persist in making observations, taking theoretical field notes, making theoretical memos, and applying theoretical sampling. To do that, I could identify the influential and contextual characteristics and elements in the situations that were relevant to the learning process of the students. The methods of making observations and taking field notes as well as in-depth audio-taped interviews could also validate my data as they offered evidence of methodological triangulation because ―triangulation is the most powerful means for strengthening credibility in qualitative research‖ (Liamputtong, 2009, p. 26). In this study, I also refined my hypotheses with one outlying case until they could explain all known cases. Moreover, I had opportunities to present my research procedures and preliminary findings to the doctoral school meetings of Massey University. This was a process of external checking as it could explore the implicit aspects of my study. I also went back to revisit 25 of the participants to present them

91

with my preliminary findings in order that they could verify and/or further provide me their own realities. Finally, when checking my research findings with the suggestions of Strauss and Corbin (1998), I found that they met all of the criteria. These were, the concepts were generated from the study based on the different conditions and across their range of dimensions. They were systematically developed and tightly linked to others, so the findings delivered new insights for how the students learned as major concepts even though some may have been modified and changed with time.

DEPENDABILITY

The dependability of qualitative research is not represented by the concepts of stability, consistency, and predictability as in a conventional paradigm. Rather, it is seen as part of a larger set of factors that are associated with changes in the entity being studied due to changes in the emergent design as more understanding of the true nature of the study and the appearance of working hypotheses. Sociological naturalists therefore demonstrate dependability by seeking means for considering both factors of instability and factors of phenomena or design induced change (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this viewpoint, dependability can be claimed by demonstrating the credibility of the study. However, I thought that it was possible to employ the appropriate techniques outlined in relation to credibility to show that my study had that quality, so it was not necessary to demonstrate dependability independently as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Nevertheless, there are other techniques suggested to establish dependability. For example, there is an overlap method that represents a kind of triangulation (Bekhet & Zauszniewski, 2012; Magnusson et al., 2005) as discussed on page 72. This means a demonstration of triangulation is equivalent to a demonstration of dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Second, there is the technique of using an inquiry audit. In this technique, the auditors examine the process (by which the study will be investigated) and the product (by which the data, findings, interpretations, and recommendations). Then, they can be determined to what extent they should be accepted and whether the study should be attested as dependable or not (Liamputtong, 2009; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Furthermore, the process of authentic product examining can also be used to determine confirmability simultaneously (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

92 CONFIRMABILITY

In qualitative research, confirmability is the degree to which the findings are generated from the characteristics of participant data and conditions of the study, not from the biases, motivations, interests, or perspectives of the researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As indicated above, a significant technique for establishing confirmability is an inquiry audit (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In an inquiry audit, I could provide at least six classes of raw records called ―audit trails‖ for the auditor to determine trustworthiness of the findings (dependability, confirmability, and a secondary check on credibility) as claimed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). There are a residue of systematic records stemming from the study which includes raw data, data reduction and analysis products, data reconstruction and synthesis products, process notes, materials relating to intentions and dispositions, and instrument development information.