Ethical consideration
8.2 Qualitative methods (focus groups) 1 Credibility.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue that for qualitative work, creditability consists of ensuring that the data speaks for itself. Assessing credibility involves asking whether the participants’ views, in the context in which they were collected, are represented as accurately as possible by the researcher. Therefore, in order to ensure credibility, rich
176 ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz, 1973) are provided concerning the setting, procedure and interactions. Then, with the permission of the interviewees, all interviews are taped and later transcribed. A tape recording documents the interviews, enabling transcripts to be made of the narrative account to strengthen the credibility of the study. This is considered to increase the credibility of the qualitative research findings, as it provides a valid
description of what is said during the interview (Robson, 2002). Further, to increase credibility of the qualitative interpretations, quotes of participants can be used to support the findings. Discussed in more detail in section 8.3.1, the inter-rater reliability of the study is increased when the transcribed interviews are transcribed and translated by two people to cross check content consistency.
According to Patton (1990), the credibility of the research is especially important in qualitative research as it is the researcher who has responsibility for data collection and analysis. Therefore, my own background information is provided in the thesis to increase credibility of the study (in Section 1.3).
8.2.2 Transferability.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) associate transferability with generalizability, or external validity, of the research results to other settings, populations and circumstances. A limitation of focus groups is generalisation. Statistical generalisation is inappropriate for the small sample as it contains risk of error. Nevertheless, Lincoln and Guba (1985) claimed that the thick description and detailed data generated from a qualitative research can provide other investigators with what they refer to as a data base for deciding on the potential transferability of the results to other settings. Therefore, rich, ‘thick description’
177 and analysis are provided to make transferability clear (Geertz, 1973). Furthermore, although findings from the focus groups cannot be used in generalisations, the
questionnaire can obtain statistically useful information based on findings from focus group data.
8.2.3 Dependability.
To be more specific about reliability in qualitative research, Lincoln and Guba (1985; p. 300) use “dependability”, which closely corresponds to the notion of “reliability” in quantitative research. To address the issue of reliability, it would be necessary to show that if the study were repeated in the same context with the same methods and participants, similar results would be obtained. However, meeting the dependability criterion is difficult in a qualitative study.
To increase dependability in this study, it would have been desirable to have another evaluator identify the themes and categories arising from the focus group discussions to cross check the findings. However, the cost would have been prohibitive. In order to address the dependability issue more directly, the study provides detailed documentation of data collection methods and the decisions taken about the research which can be laid open to external scrutiny and thereby enable a future researcher to repeat the study, if not necessarily to gain the same results.
178
8.2.4 Confirmability.
The concept of confirmability is the qualitative concept comparable to objectivity in quantitative data. For confirmability, I offer a self-critically reflexive analysis of the methodology used in the research. Also, adoption of the constant comparative methods increases confirmability. This involves examination and re-examination of the data to discover the inherent themes emerging from it, and use of information from all available sources so that the themes are refined until saturation is achieved. Saturation is defined by Corbin and Strauss (1990) as occurring when the collection of new data does not shed any further light on the issue under investigation. The number of interviews that lead to saturation was dependent on the interviews themselves and for this study, four focus groups of teachers and four focus group of students lead to saturation of data.
Moreover, to help ensure that the findings are the result of the experiences and ideas of the participants rather than the characteristics and preference of the researcher, Miles and Huberman (1984) considered the key criterion for confirmability to be reflexivity. Reflexivity is the extent to which the researcher admits his or her own predisposition and is aware of the effects of their:
‘methods, values, biases, decisions and mere presence in the very situations they investigate’ (Bryman, 2004; p. 543).
Glaser and Strauss (1976) claim that researchers bring their own prior knowledge to analysis of data, and therefore emerging themes cannot be entirely theory free. Cohen et al (2007) mention that the:
179
‘researcher’s own emotions, attitudes, beliefs, values, characteristics enter the research’ (p. 171),
thereby influencing the research during data collection and analysis. Cohen suggested that:
‘reflexivity recognises that researchers are inescapably part of the social world that they are researching’ (p. 171),
and that researchers should declare the extent of all their prior knowledge before research commences and/or should:
‘disclose their own selves in the research seeking to understand their part in, or influence on the research’ (p. 171).
Therefore, explanation and justification of all the decisions made in the research are identified to help minimise personal influence.