Qualitative method trustworthiness

Prior to the development of the interview questions and data collection, the trustworthiness of the qualitative research method needed to be realised.

Trustworthiness of qualitative research is recognised to be achieved differently to quantitative research. It is determined by principles that include rigour, validity,

Mixed methods study design

Data analysis

Thematic analysis Critical Discourse Analysis

(CDA) (NVivo v10.0) Quantitative data collection IMGs (n=105) Data analysis

Descriptive and Interferential statistics (SPSS 20.0) Final analysis Results Inferences Qualitative data collection Key informants (n=23) IMGs (n=22) Research questions 1, 2, 3, 4 Research question 1

reliability, generalisability and reflexivity that produce high-quality data (Patton, 1999). How each of these principles was achieved in this study is discussed below.

5.2.1.3.1 Rigour

Rigour refers to the systematic approach to the research study and follows a defined process while addressing issues such as selective interpretation and

presentation of findings (Grbich, 1999). In this study, rigour was addressed through the use of preliminary data, the use of snowball sampling, being familiar with many of the cultural and social issues of the subjects and being assisted by key

informants. In this manner, the study allowed a sense of ownership is transferred to the IMGs, especially among the key informants. This sense of ownership ensured a greater access to more IMGs, and more in-depth information being provided throughout the interviews.

Rigour in terms of the research method’s dependability is also concerned with reducing the risk of inconsistency which can be caused by the variability from the phenomena itself, changes induced by the research design or the researcher. Graneheim and Lundman (2004, p. 110), stated in their commentary on gaining trustworthiness within research that

It is important to question the same areas for all the participants, [however], interviewing and observing is an evolving process during which interviewers and observers acquire new insights into the phenomenon of study that can subsequently influence follow-up questions or narrow the focus for observation.

5.2.1.3.2 Validity

Validity is established by how appropriate and meaningful the inferences are in terms of the quality and assertions made from the data (McDermott & Sarvela, 1999). In this case, validity refers to whether the study investigates what it is meant to study (Malterud, 2001). Validity in qualitative research also lies in the reader being convinced that the researcher has accessed and accurately represented the social world under study (Grbich, 1999).

Access to the lived world of IMGs was achieved by building rapport with key informants, who not only accepted the research being conducted but the

researcher who was conducting the research. It led to greater insights concerning IMG experiences and contact with IMGs. Access to the IMGs’ social world was also realised by developing trust with the IMG participants that led to a greater level of openness and truth being provided. In some cases, experiences that were shared which IMGs had not been shared with anyone else.

Validity is also accomplished by presenting multiple quotes, reflexive notes and addressing complex questions within the data analysis phase by seeking further clarification from IMG and key informant participants.

5.2.1.3.3 Reliability

Reliability is concerned with using research methods that provide consistent, dependable and stable information and occurs when the participant’s views and meanings have been meaningfully accessed (Grbich, 1999; McDermott & Sarvela, 1999). It is the capacity to provide representations of good quality research which are believable from the point of view of the research subjects rather than the researcher (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Ensuring credibility occurs; the

participant’s views and voices become a more powerful vehicle within the research rather than just a researcher’s values, assumptions and suppositions which have been put forward (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). To achieve this, greater authenticity of the qualitative data, tangible accounts of the participant’s perspectives within the research need to be provided. By so doing, the reader can analyse and judge for themselves the quality and authenticity of the data put forward. This process is where direct quotations are highlighted in the study and are included in the thesis, so as to illustrate and support the accounts emerging from the research

(Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005).

5.2.1.3.4 Transferability

There are other measures of trustworthiness within qualitative research and they include transferability (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Transferability is “the extent to which the findings can be transferred to other settings or groups” (Hungler & Polit, 1999, p. 717). In most cases, qualitative research is unable to be generalised

to other populations; however it has been argued that qualitative research may be in part transferable to other populations that are in similar situations, or at least illuminative in the sense that it helps to better understand similar cases (Malterud, 2001). In this sense, in this study qualitative research provides thorough and

descriptive findings to the needs, desires and challenges encountered by IMGs locally that can be transferred to other situations nationally and internationally (Malterud, 2001).

5.2.1.3.5 Reflexivity

The trustworthiness of the research methods also requires reflexivity and personal note taking throughout the research process. Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005, p. 43), highlighted the significance reflexivity plays in the rigor and validity of qualitative research when they state, “reflexive research acknowledges that the researcher is part and parcel of the setting, context and culture they are trying to understand and analyse. That is to say, the researcher is the instrument of the research.”

In addition, reflexivity is a process where the researcher needs to self-assess and recognise their own subjectivity, preconceptions, motivation and theoretical foundations within the research process (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005; Malterud, 2001). In this sense, reflexivity is a method which

requires the researcher to be critically conscious through personal accounting of how the researcher’s self-location (across for example, gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality), position, and interests influence all stages of the research process… to produce research that questions its owns interpretations and is reflexive about its own knowledge production towards the goal of producing better, less distorted research accounts. (Pillow, 2003, p. 178)

As part of this process, the researcher then needs to review and analyse the data in such a way that it avoids any previous notion or anticipation of findings and