Reliability and Validity of Data

5.2.1 Quantitative Data

Reliability in research, for me, means that the research has honesty and technicality in using the methods, and data has been collected in a rigorous way which is specific and focuses on the specific aims that I, as a researcher, wanted to explore. In this research, I focus on peace studies as a part of teacher training in Early Childhood Education in

154

RUs. Reliability of quantitative data relies on the specific methods used in this research and the way it is analysed. It includes the quality of the methods (Densombe, 2010:106). In this research the quantitative method used was a questionnaire to collect data on the teaching and learning of peace education in RUs from the perspectives of students. This questionnaire was adapted from the work of Sukcharoen (1989) who used it for her research at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. Her research was concerned with the concepts of peace and peace education drawn from the views of scholars who were concerned with peace studies in Thailand. I modified her instrument for the specific aims of my research by adding the topics on teaching and learning peace education in RUs, peace education for early childhood children, and the climate and violence in RUs. I piloted the questionnaire with two students, to check to see if the questions asked were related to what I as researcher wanted to find out. By piloting the questionnaire, this supported both the reliability of the questions to ensure they focussed on the aims of the research and it also supported the validity of the findings from the questionnaire.

Validity

The validity of the quantitative data concerns the accuracy of the questions asked in the questionnaires. First of all, the questionnaire was measured by using ‘face validity’ to examine the accuracy of the questions. The questionnaire was constructed and the questions examined based on the literature to assess how reasonable they were (Robson, 2000:68). At this stage, all questions were initially checked by the researcher that they were able to measure students’ views. Then, the pilot project was undertaken at Kanchanaburi Rajabhat University in Thailand. This was undertaken with two students on the Early Childhood Education Programme. The questionnaire was adjusted in the light of the results from the pilot project. This helped me refine the questions in the questionnaire to ensure they were more focussed on the topics I was aiming to explore. The impact of the result from the pilot project on the main research was addressed in section 4.6. Moreover, the questionnaires were checked by a specialist lecturer in research methods and a specialist lecturer in early childhood education in Thailand.

155

5.2.2 Qualitative Data

Reliability in qualitative data is concerned with the quality of methods for collecting data (Golashani, 2003). The qualitative part of this research was designed to collect in- depth data in two RUs by using semi-structured interviews, focus groups and collection of documents. The data obtained through these methods enabled me to analyse them and check for accuracy. As a lecturer at RU, I was knowledgeable about RUs’ curricula and therefore knew what documents were available. By upholding my ethical researcher stance, I was able to access appropriate staff and documentation for this research. These I believe lead to an accuracy of data in the areas of curricula and the teaching and learning process of RUs. Being an ex-Buddhist novice and studying Buddhist education for six years helped me to understand deeply the concepts of peace and peace education in relation to Buddhism. In the area of Islam, I consulted with the Muslim Studies Center of Chulalongkorn University in aspects relating to Islamic principles, such as ethics of conducting research with Muslims and issues relating to the southern conflicts. I would suggest that this research was conducted in the Thai context, particularly in RUs, which have a specific environmental, cultural, religious and political phenomenon. Therefore, the findings can have resonance for the forty RUs where the structures of universities and curricula are similar. With regard to the findings relating to Islam, this aspect can be generated only in Thailand. This is because there are many differences amongst Muslims in different countries such as politics, histories, cultures, geography and ways of life.

Validity

Validity in qualitative data of this research has been checked in several ways, by using triangulation and respondent validity. In triangulation, the data from different data sources were cross-checked. For example the information about the universities’ policies on peace education was cross-checked by senior administrators, lecturers,

156

students and collected documents. The information from the different sources supports the accuracy of the existing policies on peace education in RUs. Furthermore, this research was designed to use both quantitative and qualitative methods in collecting data. Newby (2010:128) stated that “triangulation takes on a different mantle when qualitative and quantitative approaches are brought to bear on an issue.” This is referred to as methodological triangulation. By the use of mixed methods, I could compare results and check the accuracy of the findings. It might not validate each other with any precision but it can reinforce each other. Moreover, emerging themes that came up from the questionnaire, interviews and focus groups were triangulated, and this ensures that the finding themes have greater reliability. This research employed case-study as a research approach. It has potential advantages for increasing validity, due to the multiple data-collection techniques used. The weaknesses of each technique can be counterbalanced by the strengths of the others and the number of different data collection methods (Newman and Benz, 1998:66-67).

The use of respondent validity was employed during data collection. During the interviews, I usually restated the interviewees’ statements on each topic and asked them to confirm if it was correct. At the end of the interviews, I also concluded the interview results and asked them to confirm accuracy. Furthermore, the interview transcript for each interview was sent to the respondent to comment and affirm this was what the participant’s thought. In the focus groups, the data were checked for accuracy by moderators (see Ethics for Interviewing in section 4.10) in each topic, before moving to the next topic. At the end of group interviews, the note takers summarised the findings to the participants and asked them to check for accuracy.