Data validity and reliability

According to Tracy (2010: 842), “credibility refers to the trustworthiness, verisimilitude, and plausibility of the research findings.” The quantitative study of Laher (2016: 322) asserted that “without examining the reliability, validity, and lack of bias in instruments, it is not possible to draw any conclusions based on the instruments.” According to Morrow (2005: 251), “credibility in qualitative research is said to correspond to internal validity in quantitative approaches.” Park and Park (2016) argue that qualitative is value-laden and biased. Therefore, the trustworthiness and validity of the findings are critical in a qualitative research study. To avoid biasness, the researcher documented a sufficient audit trail of data and all findings were written around the specific evidence, thereby guiding the reader to the type of evidence collected, such as quotations, reflective remarks, behaviour and

112

attitudes noted during the interview and the researcher’s observations. The researcher probed answers and compared them to the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 to identify gaps. The researcher used the perceptions and experiences of the cases to identify possible risks faced by the selected cases to confirm the possible exposure to risks in the CoT. In the first phase of the proposal, the exposures to risk were based on ‘symptoms’ identified in the abbreviated literature (refer to Chapter 1, Section 1.2) and when the results were presented, the profiling of risks was also done based on the participants’ perceptions and experiences to confirm the risk exposure (refer to Section 4.3.2 of Chapter 4). This also ensured triangulation and avoided biasness.

Morrow (2005: 252) argues that credibility is “achieved by prolonged engagement with the participants, persistent observation in the field; the use of peer de-briefers or peer researchers; negative case analysis; researcher reflexivity; and participant checks, validation, or co analysis.” The engagement with the participants took longer than anticipated. The estimated time for engagement was 1 hour and 30 minutes. The researcher and the participants, therefore, had enough time to ask questions and answers where necessary. However, the researcher avoided forcing information out of the participants, but noted their reflective remarks during the analysis. The context was observed on several occasions. The researcher even noted new developments in the CoT and even visited similar shops to observe the kind of products and services being sold by those enterprises (refer to Section 4.2 of Chapter 4). Self-reflexivity plays a key role in the phenomenon that was investigated. The researcher has experience in the field of auditing, accounting and risk. However, the researcher prepared himself spiritually and emotional before each engagement. Moreover, the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 was detailed. It ensured that the researcher made appropriate judgements on views. Credibility in this study was also earned by the use of thick description (Tracy, 2010). The researcher was detailed in the explanation of the events, interactions and conversations, more words than telling. The researcher noted reflective remarks and questioned various

113

processes to avoid incorrect conclusions. Moreover, Morrow (2005) argued that a rich description should not only be premised on the participants’ experience of the phenomenon, but also on the context in which those experiences occurred. The researcher showed more details to persuade the reader, including the participants’ experiences and the context in which the experience happened. Moreover, the researcher’s observations were used to provide feedback on the context. This ensured that the researcher could add his own voice and not solely rely on the participants’ perceptions and experiences. According to Tracy (2010: 843), “good qualitative research delves beneath the surface to explore issues that are assumed, implicit, and have become part of participants’ common sense.” As a result, the researcher took note of the tacit knowledge of the participants during the interview by observing comments and statements, including actions. This also included questions which were asked, but not answered or even avoided.

“Triangulation in qualitative research assumes that if two or more sources of data, theoretical frameworks, and types of data collected, or researchers converge on the same conclusion”, the research study is creditable (Tracy, 2010: 843, citing Denzin, 1978). Triangulation was applied whereby different sources of evidence was considered to provide a variety of measurements for the phenomenon and to increase the construct validity (Blumberg, et al., 2014). The researcher considered literature sources (refer to Chapter 2), own observations (refer to Section 4.2 of Chapter 4), perceptions and experiences of the participants (refer to Section 4.2.2 of Chapter 4) to arrive at a conclusion. In some instances, the researcher applied self-reflexivity by analysing the participants’ experiences and perceptions in order to explore issues or delve beneath what had been communicated by the participants. This was done to ensure that the data was not generalised beyond what the cases warranted. Multivocality include varied voices in the qualitative report, analysis and it provides a space for a variety of opinions (Tracy, 2010). Observations were made to avoid excessive reliance on the participants’ experiences and perceptions, which ensured multivocality. It allowed the researcher to compare and contrast views while

114

adding his voice or familiarity with the text. The voices of the participants in the form of quotations validated the responses of the participants in respect of the phenomenon.

3.3.6.2 Dependability

According to Morrow (2005), dependability is said to correspond to reliability in the quantitative approach. Similarly, Welman, et al. (2005) elucidate that reliability relates to the credibility of the research finding. Morrow (2005: 252) accentuates that “dependability is the process through which findings are derived should be explicit and repeatable as much as possible. This is accomplished through carefully tracking the emerging research design and through keeping an audit trail, that is, a detailed chronology of research activities and processes; influences on the data collection and analysis; emerging themes, categories, or models; and analytic memos.” Correspondingly, according to Tracy (2010), the researcher may evaluate the number of pages of field notes, the time gap between fieldwork and the development of field notes. The researcher recorded notes during the interview to avoid time gaps between the time when field notes were written and the time of the interview. This ensured that critical information was not missed or lost. All field notes were numbered to ensure that all the pages were included as evidence or part of the audit trail and they were scanned onto a disc for proper documentation.

The researcher used audiotapes for two cases after obtaining permission from the participants in order to reflect on the interview and make additional memoranda (transcripts). The transcripts were scanned onto a disc for evidentiary purposes. For one case, only field notes were taken on the same day of the interview. The write- ups of the field notes were documented on the computer for evidentiary purpose. Tracy (2010) further argued that the number of and the length of the interviews, the types of questions being asked and the critical procedures for ensuring that transcripts were accurate, demonstrated rigor. The interview took longer in order to

115

gather all the necessary evidence. The types of questions on the interview schedule/guide were based on the theory reviewed in Chapter 2.

3.3.6.3 Conformability

According to Morrow (2005), conformability is said to correspond to objectivity in the quantitative approach. All the research processes were disclosed to ensure that the process conformed to the qualitative study methodology. Morrow (2005: 252) describes conformability as being “based on the perspective that the integrity of findings lies in the data and that the researcher must adequately tie together the data, analytic processes, and findings in such a way that the reader is able to confirm the adequacy of the findings.” The researcher tied the collected data, which was also supported by quotations from the participants’ perceptions and experiences.

The research design was informed by the literature as the basis for the decision taken by the researcher, which ensured objectivity. The choices taken by the researcher were disclosed for the research purpose and in the report. Comments were made on the transcripts and the write-ups to indicate the different views of the researcher and the participants, and between participants themselves. As there was too much information, the researcher had to separate the main findings of the research from the additional findings and focus on critical issues that indicated material gaps in the risk management processes. A proper audit trail was kept to identify replication.

3.3.6.4 Transferability

According to Tracy (2010: 845), transferability is “achieved when readers feel as though the story of the research overlaps with their own situation and they intuitively transfer the research to their own action.” The researcher reviewed all the data and findings in order to determine which cases could be or could not be transferred. The participants’ perceptions and experiences and researcher’s observations were

116

similar for some of the challenges raised by the retail cases. Hence, a certain portion of the findings may be transferred. Moreover, the similarity of some of the findings could be related to some of the findings identified in the literature, which was reviewed in Chapter 2. The researcher disclosed those findings that contradicted the proposition. Blumberg, et al. (2014) emphasise that a qualitative study generalises to the proposition, not a population. It was critical to resist to generalise the results from the case study to a population. In order to ensure transferability, the claims were not generalised beyond what the case could warrant. The researcher disclosed in the limitations to avoid generalisation on the population of the small and micro retail enterprises. In most instances, the researcher referred to the specific cases. The researcher seeked to identify ideologies, experiences and provide a rich description of the phenomenon to ensure that other small and micro retail enterprises could familiarise themselves with them in order to ensure transferability. The researcher linked to the challenging factors in the literature review relating to the small and micro retailers to the various types of risk. The researcher identified obstacles, factors, signals, conditions and constraints that were suggested as the causes of failure in order to ensure that the risk management processes were described in the context of the challenges faced by SMMEs. This ensured that the participants could familiarise themselves with the topic and made it easy for the researcher to explain some of the questions asked during the interview. Tracy (2010: 845) emphasises that “researchers may create reports that invite transferability by gathering direct testimony, providing rich description, and writing accessibly and invitational”. The qualitative report was detailed in order to invite transferability. The researcher used detailed quotations and shortened quotations to emphasise his observations and perceptions, and the participants’ experiences.

3.3.6.5 Authenticity

Tracy (2010) relates sincerity to the notion of authenticity and genuineness. This suggests that authenticity refers to either honesty, disclosure of biasness or limitation

117

in the study as the relevant dimensions (Blumberg, et al., 2014). The researcher’s biases, goals and any limitations that had an impact on the study, were disclosed in the study. The writer was honest about his shortcomings and strengths, including awareness of the phenomenon (self-reflexivity) (Tracy, 2010). The researcher provided details of instances in which the participants were struggling to eloquently engage on some topic, although it was viewed as a finding relating to awareness. However, such disclosure was required, because it affected the quality of the information to be collected. In respect of transparency, the researcher was honest about the research process. The information on the process was disclosed in the application for ethical clearance. In some instances, the researcher was transparent on the interview conducted with a manager instead of an owner. Even though it met the proposition, the possibility of differing perspectives or views between the manager and the owner could not be excluded. Morrow (2005: 252) emphasises that “authenticity criteria include fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity and catalytic authenticity.” The researcher interrogated and explored the participants’ opinions and in some instances where opinions contradicted those that they had mentioned before, the researcher reviewed the opinions in line with the theory to arrive at a conclusion. However, the researcher avoided forcing information out of the participants. This is evident in unanswered questions or questions answered with remarks. This ensured that fairness authenticity was achieved and that the information was disclosed in the qualitative report. Those involved were acknowledged (honoured) in the report.

Tracy (2010: 842) argues that “transparent research is marked by disclosure of the study’s challenges and unexpected twists and turns and revelation of the ways research foci transformed over time”. The researcher disclosed any twist related to the study in the research report to ensure transparency. The twists and opinions of the participants were expanded, matured and elaborated upon in the research. The researcher aligned the opinions with the theory. The researcher anticipated that the knowledge and understanding of the participants would be enhanced during the

118

research study. The cases indicated that they were willing to take advice on risk management and confirmed that they viewed it as important. Hence, the topic stimulated the participants’ interest since most of the small businesses continued to fail, therefore, a mechanism was sought to ensure sustainability in the current world turmoil.