Chapter 5: Phase 1 Methods
4.8 Quality, rigour and trustworthiness
Ethical considerations relate centrally to whether research writing is
trustworthy and does justice to the experiences of the participants (Holloway, 2005). There is an extensive literature on issues of rigour, quality and validity
Chapter 4: Methods Overview
105
in the evaluation of qualitative research. Criteria employed to judge the quality of quantitative research such as objectivity, reliability and generalisability are perceived as inappropriate for qualitative studies where researcher
interpretation and subjectivity are integral to the processes and production of knowledge (Patton, 2002; Yardley, 2008).
Within the field of qualitative research validity refers to judgements that a study is sound, trustworthy and has been carried out in accordance with certain standards of good qualitative research practice (Yardley, 2008). However because qualitative research is not a ‘unified field’ some authors advocate caution in rigidly defining and applying criteria that may prioritise methods at the expensive of the creative, interpretative dimension of qualitative analysis (Dixon-Woods et al, 2004). Sandelowski (1993), whilst acknowledging the role of rigour, famously cautioned against confusing rigour with ‘rigour mortis’, where adhering to rigidly espoused methods risks stifling creativity and reducing the richness of human experience. Yardley (2008) suggests instead that quality should more flexibly combine principles of commitment and rigour, contextual sensitivity, and coherence across theory, research questions, methods and impact.
Trustworthiness within qualitative research requires demonstration of credibility, dependability, transferability and confirmability (Holloway and Wheeler, 2010). Credibility concerns the recognition of meanings by those who have contributed their experiences. A process of constant exploration and verification should ensure compatibility between the perceptions of the researcher and participants (Cresswell, 2003). Questions of transferability, ask whether findings are transferable from one research context to another (Holloway, 1997). Rather than principles of generalisibility associated with positivist paradigms, transferability relates to thoughtful, modest extrapolations from well-described cases to other contexts of inquiry (Patton, 2002). Transferability therefore depends upon adequate description of sampling methods and the profiles of participants.
Chapter 4: Methods Overview
106
Dependability reflects the reliability of a study (Guba and Lincoln, 1985). It demonstrates the detail, accuracy and consistency of a study by allowing readers to scrutinise the decision-making processes of researchers. Confirmability also helps make the research process transparent by enabling the reader to judge the way findings and conclusions have addressed the aims of the research and are not derived from biases of the researcher (Holloway, 1997). Confirmability ensures that data may be traced back to original sources through an audit trail.
Studies located within participatory action research methods are subject to forms of quality and validity that go beyond notions of trustworthiness (Herr and Anderson, 2005). Patton (2002) suggests that inquiry that aspires to be fully collaborative and participatory should abide by a set of principles. These include:
Full involvement of the participants in all aspects of the research cycle and activities
The ability of participants to claim ownership of the inquiry
Participants work as a group with the researcher acting as facilitator, collaborator and equal
Full recognition and valuing of participant’s expertise and encouragement for participants to acknowledge and value what they bring to the research
Recognition of power imbalances and actions taken to redress inequalities and imbalances
(Patton, 2002:185)
These aspirations challenge most qualitative, participatory researchers but they pose additional dilemmas within PhD research studies where issues of originality and ownership are critical to academic criteria of evaluation (Herr and Anderson, 2005; Klocker, 2012).
The centrality of democratic, authentic engagement with lay researchers requires that questions about rigour and quality in PAR, must address whether the inquiry is accessible, whether it makes a difference and whether it is sustainable and of meaningful consequence (Koch and Kralik, 2006; Stringer
Chapter 4: Methods Overview
107
2007). The importance of relational processes and cycles of action and reflection with collaborators require transparent discussion of relational practice, personal values and epistemological assumptions (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005; Bradbury and Reason 2006; Reason and Bradbury 2006).
Herr and Anderson (2005) call for action research to appraise dialogic validity to measure whether goals of generating new knowledge have been achieved and outcome validity to appraise achievement of action-oriented goals. Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) also relate quality of participatory research to pragmatic validity, or, in the case of this PAR project, how the inquiry had pragmatically impacted on participants’ knowledge and experience of friendships. This links to Herr and Anderson’s (2005) notion of catalytic validity, which highlights the transformative goals of PAR through ongoing education of both researcher and participants. Within this project, for example, the Research Group informally reviewed, at regular intervals, how our awareness and understandings of friendship had transformed across the course of the project.
4.9 Reflexivity
Reflexivity contributes to the integrity and quality of the research by interrogating the credibility of the researcher and the impact of the researcher’s presence on the formation of meanings (Patton, 2002; Finlay, 2002). Through ‘looking back and inward in a self-aware manner’ (Fischer, 2009:584) the individual researcher can develop a greater mindfulness of personal issues and assumptions that may filter or obscure insights into and interpretations of data. Reflexivity therefore makes transparent the important role of the self (Fine, 1994), the biases brought to the research by the researcher and the impact of relationships on actions and knowledge generated by the research (Finlay, 2002).
Whilst the aims and value of reflexivity within qualitative research are commonly agreed, Mauthner and Doucet (2003) suggest there has been limited discussion of how to operationalise reflexivity in a theoretically and methodologically coherent way. They recommend that confidence in
Chapter 4: Methods Overview
108
qualitative work will be enhanced by attention to three key dimensions of reflective activity. Researchers should attend to social / emotional reactions to respondents in projects, to the institutional and interpersonal contexts which shape and house research activities and to ontological/ epistemological concepts of individual and relational accounts.
Patton (2002) asserts that reflexivity comes most strongly into play in analysing and reporting the data. Practitioners of participatory research however note the fundamental importance of positive working relationships and the impact of these relationships on the quality and trustworthiness of knowledge, action and learning (Stringer, 2007). Although reflexivity is an acknowledged component of much qualitative research, PAR inquiries tend to examine more closely the intrapersonal dynamics of power that operate between co-researchers within PAR groups. In doing so, it promotes the possibility of creating empowerment through self-awareness and the shared construction and ownership of knowledge (McFadden and McCamley, 2002; Maguire, 2006).
Finlay’s (2002) five-part typology discusses reflexivity based in mutual collaboration, social critique and ironic deconstruction, in addition to more familiar introspective or intersubjective, phenomenological forms of reflexivity. Whilst mutual collaboration best suits principles of participatory research, Finlay suggests that reflexivity is rarely located exclusively within a single form of reflexivity. She also cautions against idealistic assumptions of equal relationships within the ‘egalitarian rhetoric’ of reflexivity based on mutual collaboration (Finlay, 2002:220).
Questions of reflexivity and relationship posed within this research included: How have my background, motivations and identities impacted on my
relationship with research participants?
How have my relationships with Research Group members and participants with aphasia affected the nature of the data and the findings?
Chapter 4: Methods Overview
109
How has my relationship to research participants and collaborators evolved and what has been the impact for me, for them and for the research of these changes in relationship?
Methods of personal reflexivity have included journal accounts of responses to research meetings and Research Group relationships, and to conducting, listening to and analysing interviews. Fieldnotes of meetings, events and interviews have also been regularly reviewed for relevance to issues of positionality and power. At the end of the project we reflected individually and as a group on the changes in our interpersonal relationships and the impact of these changes on our evolved understandings of friendship.
4.10 Summary
This chapter has described the composition, formation and working relationships of the Research Group. The intrapersonal dynamics that existed between group members and myself represented a foundational component of the Friendship and Aphasia project. The spirals of reflecting and acting together on a continuous basis over three years have meant that the process of working together was not always neatly divisible into ‘methods’ and ‘findings’. Rather these embedded, participatory processes left their mark in an evolutionary way on project actions, phases, interpretations and individuals. Careful reflection upon these collaborative acts of engagement contributed to processes of transparency and trustworthiness throughout the study. The chapter also highlighted the importance of heightened awareness of relationships and relational ethics as an essential thread of the fabric of PAR inquiries.
Chapter 5: Methods: Phase 1