Ensuring Quality

Patton (2002) states that validity and reliability are two factors that any qualitative researcher should be concerned about when designing a study, analysing the results and judging the quality of the study. Silverman (2004, p. 283) suggests that, “validity and reliability are two important concepts to keep in mind when doing research, because in them the objectivity and credibility of research are at stake.”

Many authors, such as, LeComte and Goetz (1982), Lincoln and Guba (1994), Eisner (1991), Lather (1993), Walcott (1993), Angen (2000), Richardson and St Pierre (2005), and Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011), have commented on the importance of validation in qualitative research and have used different terms for this purpose (cited in Creswell, 2013). Validity and reliability are used differently in qualitative research and are described below.

In qualitative research, validity addresses the credibility of the findings (Guba, 1981). This refers to the ‘truthfulness’ of the findings in the research, and it is the responsibility of the researcher to provide chains of evidence and sets of narrative accounts that are plausible and credible (Hammersley, 1992). As such, validity refers to the best available approximation to the truth of propositions. Validity is more important and comprehensive than reliability, as it is harder to measure and evaluate (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002).

On the other hand, reliability is the extent to which the set of meanings derived from several interpreters are sufficiently congruent (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). In addition, reliability refers to the degree of consistency with which instances are

156 assigned to the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different occasions (Hammersley, 1992).

3.8.1 Criteria for evaluation for grounded theory research

The criteria for assessing the quality of the data in quantitative and qualitative research are not similar. Creswell (2013) refers to two sets of criteria that can be used to judge the quality of the grounded theory research:

 Charmaz’s (2006) four criteria; and

 Strauss and Corbin’s (1990, 1998, 2008) seven criteria.

Charmaz (2006) proposes the following four criteria: credibility, originality, resonance and usefulness.

Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998, 2008) identify seven criteria, in the form of questions, to be applied during the general research process:

1. How was the original sample selected? What grounds?

2. What major categories emerged?

3. What were some of the events, actions or incidents that pointed to some of these major categories?

4. On the basis of what categories did theoretical sampling proceed? Guide data collection? Was it representative of the categories?

5. What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations and on what grounds were they formulated and tested?

157 6. Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen? How were these discrepancies accounted for? How did they affect the hypothesis?

7. How and why was the core category selected (sudden, gradual, difficult, easy)? On what grounds?

Consequently, the above criteria guided the researcher during the data collection and analysis stage to confirm the findings, and to generate themes and categories from the data.

3.8.2 Trustworthiness

To maintain the quality of data and the standard of the research, it is important to ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the study. As suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998, 2008), Lietz, Langer and Furman (2006), and Patton (2002), the researcher has to use multiple strategies to establish trustworthiness and minimise the risk of avoidable errors in the study. Merriam (1998) suggests five strategies: audit trail, member checking, peer debriefing, triangulation and reflexivity.

Other authors also provide various lists, which include some of the criteria listed above. Creswell (2013), and Creswell and Miller (2000) propose eight different procedures for achieving credibility and the trustworthiness of findings: prolonged engagement and persistent observation in the field, triangulation, using peer review or debriefing, negative case analysis, clarifying researcher bias, in member checks, rich think description and external audits (cited in Strauss & Corbin, 2008).

158 3.8.3 Strategies used to ensure trustworthiness

This study has used a combination of available strategies to ensure the quality of the study which are described below.

3.8.3.1 Audit trail

All interview records were kept in both hard copy and electronic formats to maintain an audit trail. All other materials, such as, transcribed copies of the interviews, memos and data analysis products were secured. Important notes in relation to the research, such as, incidents during interviews have all been recorded and kept to improve the quality of the data.

3.8.3.2 Constant comparative method

Constantly comparing data and information also helps to ensure the trustworthiness of the study. Researchers use comparative skills to stay grounded in the data. Similarly, in this study, comparison was made including incident-to-incident and afterwards with the literature or other data, with the aim to “stimulate … thinking about properties and to help pull the researcher’s thinking away from personal and professional experience” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; 2008, p. 122).

3.8.3.3 Triangulation

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the purpose of using triangulation is to establish consistency among the data, that is, to establish credibility. Guba and Lincoln (1994) also suggest that triangulation of data can come from four different sources: sources, theories, methods and investigators. This study used several theories and existing literature to triangulate data and support the themes emerging from the interview responses. Subsequently, pre-existing studies and research finding

159 helped in shaping categories and making comparisons. Therefore, it helped in ensuring the quality of the data, and developing theories and reports that are credible.