Here what was involved was impartially reflecting on what the analysed data revealed. It entailed revisiting the data as many times as necessary to cross-check or confirm the conclusions that seemed to emerge from the evidence. The data was tested for plausibility, conformability, and validity. Validity in qualitative research is different from that of quantitative research. In the latter, what is demanded is that the evidence or data should have been predictable from some general law or theory. In qualitative research, validity encompasses a much broader concern for whether or not the conclusions drawn from the data are credible, defensible, warranted, and able to withstand alternative explanations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
6.12.1 Trustworthiness of data
The trustworthiness of data generated by qualitative methods is questioned by positivists. To refute such objections, Lincoln and Guba (1985) have constructed four
107
criteria to validate qualitative data: credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability.
1. Credibility or internal validity in qualitative methods seeks to ensure that the study identified what it was intended to identify. In other words, the qualitative researcher needs to instil confidence in the data. In order to do this, it is sensible to use triangulation, in other words, several ways of validating the evidence. In this study this is done by the use of interviews with key informants in both the public and private sectors as well as those of UAE young people.
2. Transferability is related to external validity or generalisation of the results of a particular enquiry to a larger population. Due to the small samples used in qualitative methods, it is not possible to generalise the results to other situations or populations. However, although this study does not claim to arrive at conclusions which are directly
applicable elsewhere, it worked with a number of participants from public and private sectors organisations and many young Emiratis, and the results will be of more general relevance to the extent that other populations have the same characteristics.
3. Dependability is related to the reliability of the study. The researcher‟s task is to explain in detail all steps taken in the data collection, data analysis, and writing up. This will allow other researchers to examine whether their own work, or future studies should be conducted in the same way. However, they will not necessarily to come up with the same results.
4. Conformability is related to objectivity in science. Objectivity is concerned with the idea of an instrument which is not dependent on people‟s skill and perception. Patton (2002) however argues that it is difficult to ensure objectivity in that sense even in the case of questionnaires and statistical tests. The idea of research that does not demand interpretation is impossible (Patton, 2002). Qualitative research however does
demand that the researcher takes steps to ensure the results of the study should as far as possible reflect the participants‟ experiences and ideas rather than the researcher‟s views.
108
6.12.2 Reflexivity and the positionality of the researcher
Reflexivity is one of the main factors affecting the trustworthiness of qualitative data. In order to enhance trustworthiness of the data, Finlay (2002) states that the researcher should understand his/her role in the study; in other words, reflexivity in research means that the researcher reflects on his/her views. For Hardy, Phillips, and Clegg (2001), reflexivity should operate at all stages of the study, which should always be self-conscious about how the process of research shapes the study findings. The research process is usually subject to a range of issues that affect the results of the phenomenon being investigated. These issues include interview schedule, interviewing, writing field notes, data analysis, and writing up the results. Therefore, reflexivity should be taken into account when understanding the problem and writing the results (Ballinger, 2006). As Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000, p. 9) put it: “Reflection can be defined as the interpretation of interpretation and the launching of critical self- exploration of one‟s own interpretation of empirical material”.
Given the scope of this study, it was necessary to use a mixture of a qualitative and quantitative approach. While it was necessary to conduct interviews to obtain specific information (especially sensitive information given the sensitive nature of the study) it was also necessary to obtain important answers from a maximum number of people (especially the young and unemployed) in order to establish a consensus relating to issues on employment and the process of Emiratisation. Hence, this study employed an inductive approach as no prior hypotheses were made. In this study I played the role of an insider and outsider: an insider who was familiar with the problems and an outsider who also came with an open mind. My position was totally neutral in all stages of the study which was essential to gain reliable and valid results.
In order to obtain reliable and valid results, I followed different steps represented in the transcription of the interviews, reading and scrutinising the transcripts line by line which gave me the opportunity to understand different views of the participants from public and private sectors. I tried to be an independent observer and an analyst but in some cases I realised what was reported by participants was questionable. For example,
109
some participants from the public sector indicated that the government has allocated sufficient human and financial resources which transpired to be untrue. These issues were noted and highlighted where appropriate in this study.