Evaluation Criteria

Assessing the validity and reliability of qualitative research is a much debated area (Smith et al, 2009). Indeed, the proliferation of qualitative research in the past several decades has prompted an important debate as to the most appropriate ways in which to evaluate such research. The acknowledgement by qualitative researchers, that quantitative research is based on different epistemological assumptions has given rise to the contention that traditional notions of reliability, validity and generalisability suited to positivist studies are in fact, less relevant to qualitative research (Hammersley, 1992; Smith et al, 2009). Importantly, the criteria used to assess a research piece needs to take into account the method used. Smith et al (2009) recommend Yardley’s (2000) criteria for assessing qualitative psychological research on the basis of its “sophisticated and pluralistic stance” (p179). Indeed Yardley’s criteria offers numerous ways of establishing quality and are suitable for studies regardless of their theoretical positioning (Smith et al, 2009). Following their

74

suggestion, in this section I outline the evaluation criteria to be used to assess the quality of this research, and go on to describe how the research fulfils the criteria.

4.5.1 Sensitivity to context

Yardley (2000) points out that sensitivity to context involves showing sensitivity to many factors, including contextual factors, existing literature, and the nuances of data collection. It also involves a commitment to attending closely to participants’ material during data analysis.

My commitment to these criteria is demonstrated in a number of ways: 1) it is evidenced in my literature review, where I have sought to identify and describe the existing literature in this area. 2) During data collection, I endeavoured to be at all times empathetic to my participants, helping them feel comfortable and adhering to ethical considerations throughout. From the very start, I was mindful of my role as researcher and how I might be influencing the research process, making personal notes about my experience of interviewing participants after each interview. In fact I was particularly mindful of contextual factors with regards to data collection. For example, I did my upmost to ensure interviews were conducted at a time and location convenient to my participants. Indeed many interviews took place at participants’ homes. I was aware that such factors might encourage a greater sense of comfort and safety and somewhat offset the discomfort of talking to a stranger about such a delicate issue. With the majority of my participants I also disclosed my own personal loss prior to interviews commencing, in a bid to put participants at ease and communicate to them that their material would be treated sensitively. I was also aware that I was a lot younger than many of my participants and that perhaps this disclosure

75

might have balanced and softened the potential relational divide inherent in our age- bound positions. I wanted participants to feel that I could engage with their narratives and empathise with their experiences. 3) Finally, I engaged closely with the idiographic approach, immersing myself in the data and analysing each case as scrupulously as possible.

4.5.2 Commitment and Rigour

Yardley (2000) argues that commitment and rigour can be established by demonstrating a commitment and therapeutic skill relevant to the data collection process. This results in a quality interview, whose contents are used with care during analysis.

I endeavoured to help participants to feel at ease throughout the interview process by meeting with them at a convenient location, being attentive to them during the interviews and showing appreciation for their input. In an attempt to ensure sampling was relevant to the question under exploration, participants were carefully selected: I endeavoured to achieve a reasonably homogenous sample via the use of inclusion criteria which all participants met prior to conducting any interviews.

During the interviews I was conscious of having an interview schedule and the questions I hoped to explore with participants whilst simultaneously being aware of the need to be flexible with them, to allow them to tell their stories in their own unique ways. I did this by seeking to give participants space during interviews, to allow their thoughts and feelings to emerge without always providing prompts. As such, sometimes I allowed for silences as participants took time to reflect. At the

76

same time, I was particularly mindful of wanting to dig deeper with participants narratives to uncover the implicit meanings therein and so I also often intervened to open up this facet of our dialogue. This was a judgement call on my part, based on my understanding of these tensions and a desire to keep a balance between ‘closeness and separateness’ (Smith et al, 2009).

During the analysis stage, I engaged closely with participants’ material when interpreting the data: this was a multi-faceted process mediated by Smith et al’s (2009) guidelines. I began by reading participants’ transcript one at a time, initially making descriptive annotations. Continuing my idiographic engagement with each transcript, my more basic annotations developed into interpretations whereby I would draw out implicit meanings from participants narratives, delving deeper as I became more familiar and immersed in their contents. Once themes had been derived from individual cases I sought to detect commonalities across participants’ accounts. I sought to be creative as well as systematic in this endeavour, utilising cut out strips of themes, numerous tables and layouts to draw out the main themes for the study (Appendices 9 and 10). For each theme, extracts from at least three participants are provided as evidence of its representativeness (Appendix 11).

4.5.3 Transparency and Coherence

These criteria refer to how clearly the stages of the research process are described and evidenced, and the degree of coherence of the research (Yardley, 2000). I endeavoured to provide a detailed and thorough explanation of all decisions taken in this research, from my epistemological stance to how participants were sampled and how I analysed the data. Throughout the research process I sought to remain closely

77

engaged with the phenomenon under question. My in-depth analysis and arguments are supported with proportionately sampled verbatim extracts.

4.5.4 Impact and Importance

Yardley (2000) argues that, ultimately, the best way of assessing a piece of research is in how useful, interesting or important it is for its reader. Indeed this is, in part, Yardley’s attempt to address generalisability. As such, it is important to note that the findings from this idiographic study with few participants is not intended to provide generalisations but rather that the findings may provide theoretical transferability, allowing the reader to evaluate the evidence in relation to their current professional and experiential knowledge. Moreover, the findings may also offer transferability relevant to therapist vulnerability beyond bereavement. Further implications of my study in terms of its value and impact are explored in section 6.3 of the discussion chapter.