Creditability, transferability and authenticity

Most fundamentally, any observed "fact" has already been interpreted at least in the sense that meaning has been assigned to an empirical observation. Description, explanation, prediction and the assessment of causes and consequences of social phenomena cannot be achieved in the absence of evaluation and interpretation. To understand is to interpret. Most disciplines in the social sciences have long recognized the interplay between context, culture and tradition, our senses and our understanding.

Strangely, these factors are generally considered only in terms of the people whom we study. Sometimes we recognize the importance of context in the interpretation of empirical data when we discuss the research process in abstract terms, but we tend to fail to take into consideration contextual elements when we elaborate a research question or present our substantive research results. Yet it is not only those we study who are stuck in a subjectively-constructed reality within which meaning is elaborated;

we researchers, as we attribute meaning to empirical phenomena, are equally stuck in our own subjectivity (Weber, 1947). Having said this, there certainly exists a reality independent of our understanding thereof; in order to conceive and understand any phenomenon, we must capture "external" reality through observation, that is, translate bits of information from an objectively-unknowable reality into subjectively interpreted and context-bound, yet knowable, realities. Weber (1986), suggest that this position implies a controversy: on the one hand, we are unable to access an objective and universal understanding of empirical phenomena but, on the other, we wish to evaluate the quality of incommensurable truth-claims. What quality guidelines can we adopt for the empirical social and political science research process that acknowledges the subjective and interpretative nature of our endeavours while, concurrently, we attempt to convey findings that are both empirically rigorous and credible?

60

Quality considerations in empirical research tend to be addressed by the concepts

"validity" and "reliability," especially in the areas of psychometrics and econometrics.

We will critically examine some possibilities of these concepts, while concurrently realizing that we cannot simply transpose these two concepts from one theoretical basis to another. Phenomenology and existentialism are characterized by many derivations.

In different parts of the world different interpretations were accorded to these movements. The main ideas were, however, retained and those ideas influenced many of the qualitative methods used in research today. The reader must not see this as an

“either – or” issue but as tools that can serve different purposes.

Credibility was obtained through protracted commitment until data was saturated and the necessary information had been unearthed. Persistent observation throughout the interview process occurred in order to explore deeper and potentially to infer on aspects such as body language. Throughout the study the concept of credibility was initiated through or highlighted by the integrity of the data rendered and the process of thorough preparation and comprehensive checks with the participants of the study (people were asked if the recorded and interpreted information was a good elucidation of what they portrayed) was used in such a manner that dependability and truthful results were discussed in the thesis. Member checks were conducted to affirm authenticity in this regard. The transcripts and analyzed texts, in terms of constructs that were identified, were communicated back to the participants interviewed and participants were then requested to indicate the extent to which their stories and explanations had been correctly described and interpreted by way of their views, experiences and situations.

Transferability was identified as there was mention of a model that could have been inferred from the results by means of an intervention (to be elaborated on in the recommendations to this study). It can be argued that there is sufficient and generate noteworthy information yielded from this study that may, in fact, be used to develop interventions programs and modelling techniques. This was done by ensuring that thorough or clear descriptions were provided within the context and hence this was

61

made readily adaptable to other contexts for similar use. The researcher assessed whether the information gained through this study did in fact confirm existing theory (of which it did) and whether it added to the theory or that the information subtracted by the research was considered transferable to other contexts in the business world.

Moustakis (1994) mentions that in qualitative research, the method of reflection that occurs throughout the phenomenological approach provides a logical, systematic and coherent resource for carrying out the analysis and synthesis needed to arrive at essential descriptions of experience. In order to discover or to find what it is that one is trying to research, one must conduct a process of internal search through which one discovers the nature and meaning of experience and develops methods and procedures for further investigation. Discovering a significant problem or question that will hold the wondering gaze and passionate commitment of the researcher is the essential opening of the heuristic process within this qualitative study (Moustakis, 1994). What is more, in order to design research of such an explorative nature, the research study will reveal the meanings and essences of a particular human experience in an accurate, comprehensive and vivid way and accordingly it is essential that the question be stated in simple, clear and concrete terms. The way in which the researcher poses the question will determine which fundamental events and activities will bear on the problem. It is within the cycle of discovery and commitment that authenticity can be affirmed. It creates a search to discover, to clarify and to understand crucial dimensions of knowledge and experience.

Dependability and confirmability of the findings is directly linked to the interviewing data generated, as this data is depended upon accurate, empathic listening, being open to oneself and to the co-researcher, being flexible and free to vary procedures to respond to what is required in the flow of dialogue, and being skillful in creating a climate that encourages the participants to respond comfortably, accurately, comprehensively and honestly in elucidating the phenomenon (Moustakis, 1994). Ultimately, confirmability consists of a bracketing of one’s theory (theories) and prejudices so as to be more truthful and credible. Weber (1986) mentions that one cannot and should not be

62

unaffected by what is said unless, of course, the researcher is either not listening or is simply denying what is being felt under the false and smug cloak of scientific objectivity.

On the contrary, it is only in relating to the other, as one to another, that interviewing is really possible – when the interviewer and the participant are both caught up in the phenomenon being discussed.