Quality 25

In this section I will discuss the aspect of quality in this study. Guba and Lincoln (1985) argue that validity and reliability are unsuitable criteria in the assessment of quality in research (Lincoln & Deniz, 2004). According to them, criteria of validity and reliability “presupposes that a single absolute account of social reality is feasible” (Bryman, 2008, p. 377). They are critical to the idea that there is an absolute truth about the social reality, and that the job of the researcher is to go and grasp that truth. Instead they propose two different primary criteria for the assessment of quality in qualitative studies: trustworthiness and authenticity. For both criteria, they suggest several subcategories(Lincoln & Deniz, 2004; Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009).

2.5.2.1 Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness has four sub criteria in the indicator of quality in qualitative studies. The first criterion is credibility. This criterion is concerned about the coherence between the

observations of the researcher and the theoretical idea they develop. The importance of sharing the research findings to the social reality that has been studied is underlined (Bryman, 2008). The next criterion is transferability. As qualitative researchers often are concerned about the uniqueness of a small group, such as this study, the aspect of external validity, or

transferability is not emphasized (Lincoln & Deniz, 2004). Instead, qualitative researchers aim to provide what Geertz (1973a) refer to as thick descriptions, “trich accounts of the details of a culture” (Geertz, 1973a in Bryman, 2008, p. 378). The latter is emphasized in this study. However, there are reasons to believe that the limited time frame of the fieldwork had negative implications for the quality (Repstad, 2007). As it was semester break during my stay, I never had the chance to observe lectures and the social life in an everyday setting at the university. Thus, many factors concerning the university environment are unanswered in this study. Besides, being a women from Europe might have affected the information shared during the interviews, e.g. in interview settings with males.

Dependability concerns whether one can trust the conclusions in a study. Guba and Lincoln

urge the researcher to adopt the so-called “auditing” approach. This involves making all data material, such as audio records, interview transcripts and field notes, accessible throughout every phase in the research process (Bryman, 2008). The final criterion is conformability. Although Guba and Lincoln recognize the impossibility of complete objectivity,

conformability shall ensure that the researcher “have acted in good faith; in other words, it should be apparent that he or she has not overtly allowed personal values or theoretical inclinations manifestly to sway the conduct of the research and findings deriving from it” (Bryman, 2008, p. 379). What was important for me during the work with this study was to ask the question “why”, instead of locating “how” social phenomena in Israel and Palestine occur. A central aim was to investigate a variety of narratives and perspectives of the informants. Nevertheless, much indicates that my background as women from the western world with a Eurocentric educational background has implications for how the social world in Israel and Palestine were perceived.

2.5.2.2 Authenticity

Authenticity addresses the degree of political impact of the research. The first sub criterion is

Fairness. To what extent are different voices in the social reality studied made visible in the

research (Lincoln & Deniz, 2004)? In my case, the aim was to engage an equal amount of Palestinian and Israeli informants. As I faced challenges of locating Palestinian professors at the university, this was not possible. However, there is an equal distribution of Palestinian and Israeli informants. This was crucial in order to include different perceptions of the social reality studied. That being said, of the Israeli informants, the majority defined themselves to the political left, which is a minority position in Israel. For that reason, my Israeli informants

The next aspect of authenticity is Ontological authenticity. To what extent does the research promote a better understanding of the social reality (Lincoln & Deniz, 2004)? During my fieldwork I experienced several times that my informants said that they rarely conversed or reflected on the issues I brought up in the interviews. Many claimed that these topics were unfamiliar in campus discussions. Due to lack of research on the encounters between Israeli and Palestinian students in Israeli academia, there is reason to believe that this study can help to increase the awareness of the social dynamics in the Israeli academia. However, a

methodological limitation of this study is the retro perspective form of some of the questions asked during the interviews. As all informants were either university student or professors, there were a significant amount of years since the informants attended primary education. Thus, noteworthy change might have occurred since then. Accordingly, the stories shared about primary education cannot be seen as valid for the contemporary primary education systems (Repstad, 2007).

The final criterion relevant for this study is Educative authenticity. This criterion questions the educative dimension of the study. To what extent can the members of the social setting studied, better understand and appreciate the perspectives of the other members of the same social setting (Lincoln & Deniz, 2004)? During the conversations with many of the

informants, the aspect of segregation between Israeli and Palestinians was evident. Many argued that they did not know the other, and how their life was like. My aim is that this research can support both Palestinian and Israelis and increase their awareness and ability to understand how it is like being a member of the other group.