15: Framework working towards a grounded theory

Evaluation Criteria

During the whole data collection and data analysis process there is one important question to ask. How authentic are my findings and interpretations? Fraenkel et al. (2012) suggest that this process of determining the degree of confidence researchers can place in what they have seen or heard is fundamental to qualitative research.

There are a number of terms used to define this quality (see table 3.16).

Table 3. 16: Terms for evaluating data and findings

Ary et al. (2010) Creswell (2008) Fraenkel et al. (2012)

» Validity » Reliability » Credibility » Transferability » Dependability » Trustworthiness » Confirmability » Validity » Accuracy » Credibility » Validity » Reliability » Credibility

Lincoln and Guba (1985) Lodico et al. (2010) Mertens (2010)

» Authenticity » Trustworthiness » Credibility » Dependability » Transferability » Catalytic authenticity » Credibility » Transferability » Dependability » Confirmability » Transformative

Because terms such as validity and reliability are often associated with quantitative research (Ary et al., 2010; Fraenkel et al., 2012; Gay et al., 2009) they will be avoided in this research project. Instead, as Lodico et al. (2010) state evaluation criteria for qualitative research focuses on how well the researcher has provided

evidence that their descriptions and analysis represent the reality of the situation and persons being studied. Therefore, this section will look at three types of evidence that relate to qualitative research as outlined by Ary et al. (2010), Lodico et al. (2010) and Mertens (2010); credibility, transferability and dependability. However, as a

researcher one is always on the learning path and through the process of emergent design (Ary et al., 2010) my knowledge and understanding of various concepts within the qualitative research paradigm has increased. This process has led me to discover the many discussions there are regarding evaluation criteria.

Towards new perspectives

Guba and Lincoln (1989) argue that terms such as those mentioned previously ‘have their roots and origins in positivist assumptions’ and ‘they are primarily

methodological criteria’. Guba and Lincoln (1989) add that terms such as fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity and tactical authenticity should be used instead. Authors Lodico et al. (2010), Mertens (2010) and Morrow (2005) also suggest that alternative terms should be used as every research situation is different and as such requires different standards of quality.

I would like to suggest that this research project, as Morrow (2005) says, is different from other qualitative research projects and therefore the standards of evaluation for this research project will vary accordingly. This research project although in the qualitative paradigm is fundamentally anchored in Pasifika beliefs. Consequently, when considering the different methods used to ensure credibility, transferability and

dependability, I would propose the use of the term fa’afaletui instead. Tamasese,

Peteru, Waldegrave and Bush (2005, p. 302) state that the Samoan concept

of knowledge from with various groupings’ and describes the validation of this important knowledge. The concept of weaving, whether it is of knowledge or hard materials, signifies a strong relationship between all elements in the weaving. If a strong relationship exists between all elements in the weaving – which in this case is between the participants, me as the researcher, the community and the methods used – this will encompass the previously mentioned evaluation criteria as well as the latest terms such as fairness (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), community (Mertens, 2010) and catalytic authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lodico et al., 2010). However, although this new terminology, fa’afaletui, is used as an umbrella over the truthfulness of this research project, the methods used to ensure credibility,

transferability and dependability are still relevant to this area. As such the methods will be explored under the traditional terminology.

Credibility  Fa’afaletui

Unlike fa’afaletui, the term credibility is a popular choice between researchers. Ary et al. (2010), Fraenkel et al. (2012), Lichtman, (2010), Lodico et al. (2010) and Mertens (2010) all use the term credibility when evaluating research. In fact, Ary et al. (2010) and Lodico et al. (2010) suggest it is the most frequently used term by qualitative researchers. Credibility refers to whether the participants’ perceptions of the situation match up with the researcher’s portrayal of them in the research project (Lodico et al., 2010). There are several methods which a researcher can implement to provide evidence of credibility. According to Ary et al. (2010), Lodico et al. (2010) and Mertens (2010) these methods include:

» Prolonged and persistent engagement; » Peer debriefing;

» Member checking;

» Progressive subjectivity; and » Triangulation

In fa’afaletui the knowledge of all individuals is woven together which could be considered a prolonged and persistent engagement due to the nature and complexity of weaving. In addition, the fa’afaletui considers all the different expressions of knowledge from various groups. This includes peer debriefing, member checking and triangulation as knowledge can be obtained from a multitude or persons and methods. In addition, as Tamasese et al. (2005) point out, the fa’afaletui model ensures information is threaded and rethreaded among all the participants until all agreed the views were valid and authentically reflected the collective experience of the group. Thus, credibility can be linked to fa’afaletui.

In this research project, an attempt was made to include all of the above methods each of which will be explained in the following subsections.

Prolonged and persistent engagement

This method of providing evidence towards fa’afaletui or credibility deals with the length of time spent collecting data. Gay et al. (2009), Lodico et al. (2010) and Mertens (2010) claim that prolonged and persistent engagements ensure the

researcher has stayed long enough and observed sufficiently diverse situations to see a full and accurate picture. This research project was conducted in two phases over an extended time frame (see diagram 3.16 on the next page).

Phase one took place over a period of two months where I conducted interviews, observations and wrote in my reflective journal. Phase two took place five months

later but also over a period of two months. During this phase I also conducted interviews, observations and wrote in my reflective journal. In addition I also distributed a questionnaire during this phase. This phase also included member checking which will be discussed in a later section.