Establishing Validity

Validity in qualitative research can be achieved through different forms of cross checking. Validity is a form of in-built checks and controls within a form of four tests of: construct, internal, external validity (Saunders et al., 2009). Validity is about truth hence in this study it is defined as the extent to which an account accurately represents the hand-pump maintenance to which they refer to (Silverman, 2011: 275). Validity is also about how accurate the developed categories stated by end-users represent issues, which really drive hand-pumps maintenance. Internal validity is about causal relationships and the validity of the influence of one variable on the other variables (Silverman, 2004). In this research this was achieved by purposeful sampling which was employed during CI, ICIs and FGs to determine project end- users knowledge about the hand-pumps management (Patton, 1990).

Construct validity is about the extent to which this study measures the hand-pump maintenance factors which influence hand-pumps survival. Construct validity was achieved through triangulating CI with ICIs. Construct validity was also incorporated within the research design by ensuring the research questions were worded in two or more questions during the interview. These two or more questions focused on looking at project success constructs from different angles (Rao & Perry 2003). In addition, the CI had an in built negative case analysis in which in each interview and before the next one, the technique demanded to approve or disapprove emerging hand-pump maintenance factors and the explanations interpreted in the data (Dick, 1990; Rao & Perry, 2003).The process also required flexibility to allow the interviewer to re-

148

evaluate, re-design both the content and process during the interview, hence establishing content validity.

External validity concern is whether the study results can be generalised to other relevant hand-pumps in Malawi and in the other sub-Saharan Africa (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, and 2012:194). External validity is described as the ability of the research findings to be described beyond the immediate case studies (Cresswell, 2007). This study achieved this as it followed a realist perspective and case study which allow theoretical or literal replication. Literal replication is about cases producing results that are similar for predictable reasons however if cases produce contrary results for predictable reasons, it is theoretical replication. As this study employs a realism paradigm, the context is influenced by other factors like political, social; economic hence selection of cases is based on contextual replication. As the study is based on contextual replication, multiple cases or sites were employed to improve external validity.

Validity verification was further followed by using other strategies like: refutable principle for anecdotalism, constant comparative method, comprehensive data treatment, deviant case analysis and using appropriate tabulations (Silverman, (2010 278). Each of these is explained how they were employed in the study. Anecdotalism, which is about the researcher setting assumptions and jumping on easy conclusions (Kirk & Miller, 1986) which was refuted at every stage. For example, interviewee X stated ‘the village chief blocks to repair hand-pump because he is not interested’. Though this was an interesting factor, the researcher refuted and instead the next respondent was subjected to be tested by stating, ‘the chief is there to support your

hand-pump repair explain more about this…’ Constant comparative method is about

finding another case to liken (Charmaz, 2006) how the cases of the pump maintenance factors are perceived (Silverman, 2011: 282). This was achieved as the study looked

149

at end-users perception of the hand-pump maintenance success factors from nine hand-pumps, 2 of which were not operational. A comparison of the outcome on what end-users were doing on welfare of each of different categories of hand-pumps allowed to examine what is considered as a successful or non-successful hand-pump- maintenance.

Deviant case analysis (Silverman, 2011: 282) is about looking at anomalies precisely to learn more of the concept. For example, when the interviewee in hand-pump X stated ‘the village chief blocks to repair hand-pump because he is not interested’ it was noted Y hand-pump interviewee stated ‘the chief was the first to give money to

buy spares parts for hand-pump to be repaired and encourages us all’. Such

contrasting data sets called for repeated inspection to arrive at generalization of a maintenance category. The outcome of such generalization was often contextual as after data was comprehensively reviewed, it was noted that hand-pump X village chief was not active because he had not been trained by the NGO while hand-pump Y had been trained, so training or capacity building for the village chiefs was concluded as a desirable category or success factor to drive maintained hand-pumps.

Appropriate tabulations may aid to identify the mode in qualitative data. Mode is about the most frequent variable. The mode improves or confirms validity of data results. Charmaz, (2000) used tabulations of hospital qualitative data and Kane (2007) tabulated qualitative data about the micro-business perspectives in food-safety research. This study used simple tabulations in a form of likert scales in analysing ICI interview data to determine the mode, as highlighted in the next chapter. Mode showed what was the most frequently hand-pump maintenance category. Reliability just like validity needs to be well outlined in qualitative research to improve study credibility.

150 3.14 Establishing Reliability

This section outlines how this study reliability was incorporated. Reliability refers to whether the data collection techniques and analytic procedures would produce consistent findings if they were repeated on another occasion or replicated by a different investigator (Saunders, et al 2009 : 192; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Rao & Perry, 2003). Charmaz, (2000) defines reliability as the degree to which the findings are independent of the accidental circumstances of the research…or whether the researcher would expect to obtain the same findings if he tried again in the same way (Silverman 2011: 275). In the quantitative study this is achieved by pretested measures and scales but in a qualitative it depends on what was going on to explain the preciousness about reliability of researchers own interpretation of the interview (Silverman, 2010 : 287). One of the ways to achieve reliability was by recording and using field notes in developing categories during CI. CI as an initial data collection tool to develop categories was initially broad and the respondents directed the flow of the interview till it became structured with subsequent interviewing.

In CI, reliability was accomplished by:-maintaining a structured process in data collection, writing and interpreting data. Writing of categories was based on whether the respondent agreed or disagreed to the previous answered data collection matrix (Table 27 page 166), in the findings' chapter, which consolidates final categories developed from respondents. Interpretation of categories also emerged from respondents as they gave the definition of each category, and next respondents were asked if the category represented the proposed definition. A summary of definitions proposed by respondents and confirmed by succeeding respondents (Table 28 page 172). Respondent agreement and disagreement concept is similar to Guba & Lincoln (1989) concept of utilising a steering committee to assist in designing and administration of the research process in accommodating reliability. This concept

151

attributes to reliability as pump- maintenance factors were only taken on board if a reasonable number of respondents agreed about the specific factors, and the collective judgement based upon the objectives. Reliability was also accommodated as information was gathered freely from volunteering of interviewees (Rodwell, Noblet, Stean, Osbourne, & Allisey, 2010). The CI process allowed the respondents to talk of categories they regarded as most important in influencing project success of hand-pumps rather than just answering the pre-planned questions in convergence interviews.

The study also improved reliability as two interviewers (co-researcher recruited for this study) worked individually parallel to each other in collecting data. Moreover, reliability was achieved as there was a comparison of researcher's results with those in literature about rural projects' success factors identified. In the two focus groups conducted, reliability was achieved by producing the data extracts which included the question, interviewee response, and the investigator continues like (ehh...Hmm) this encouraged group of end-users to state more information (Silverman 2004). Apart from field notes, reliability was strengthened by inter-coder agreement. Field notes were transcribed straight away. Pauses and overlaps though trivial were also transcribed. Talk verbatim was transcribed without tidying up, but as a focus group discussed. Material was coded by researcher and assistant separately. There were few inconsistencies between two outcomes may be due to ambiguity in data or overlap in coding categories.

.

3.15 Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is about relationship building between the researcher and interviewees. To employ this, the researcher identified information, which was