Research rigour

In this section, I have referred to Silverman’s (2011) methods of the evaluation of the

141 and Lincoln (2005) posed, “Are these findings sufficiently authentic … that I may trust myself in acting on their implications?” (p. 205).

11.1 Credibility

Credibility refers to the faithfulness of the description of the phenomena under study (Charmaz & Bryant, 2011). In Charmaz and Bryant’s (2011) terms, I strove for methodological, analytic, and theoretical credibility.

In the data analyses, the use of gerunds that remained close to the data (Charmaz, 2006) prevented me from making assumptions and kept my personal and professional bias at bay. The use of gerunds also helps to avoid the common error of anecdotalism (Silverman, 2011, p 357) because almost all interpretations are based on exemplary instances of the behaviour. The constant comparative methods in which the researcher revisits and compares and

contrasts codes and categories, as well as the theoretical sampling which helps to ensure that rich data are obtained, help to build the persuasiveness (Silverman, 2011) of the

interpretations. In this way, the selection of which instances to include and which to exclude is more explicit, and enhances the representativeness of the instances that are included. The constant comparative method is not only a way to look for trends and commonalities, but is also a way to look at how the data falsify previous assumptions about the data. This is, according to Kirk and Miller (1986, cited by Silverman, 2011, p. 358), a way in which qualitative research can be made credible.

I kept records of the data by audio and/or video-recording the interviews; I kept a data book for each participant; kept a self-reflective research diary; and held regular discussions with my research supervisor. This audit trail (Silverman, 2011) contributed to the credibility of the data.

11.2 Reliability

Silverman (2011) argues that qualitative research is subject to questions of reliability, that is, the degree of consistency with which researchers would project and come up with the same results. He argued that reliable research is associated with “low-inference descriptors” (p. 361). In order to ensure that the research avoids high-inference descriptors, he recommended that the researcher tape records each interview; transcribes the tapes meticulously; and presents examples of verbatim instances in the report. These recommendations were followed.

142

11.3 Validity

Silverman (2011) describes validity as the extent to which the interpretation of the data represents the phenomenon under study. In contrast to classical versions of grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory is epistemologically subjective and ontologically relativist. Meaning is constructed through the researcher’s interpretive understandings (Charmaz, 2009). This does not mean that the research is not bound to validity (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). I used a number of strategies to enhance the validity of the research, as recommended by Silverman (2011). He recommended that credibility is achieved in five ways: analytic induction; the constant comparative method; deviant-case analysis, comprehensive data treatment; and using appropriate tabulations. These are classic grounded theory methods that were included in this study.

I did not engage in participant checking of codes or theoretical categories. Silverman (2011) wrote that it is unlikely that participants have a privileged understanding of their positioning in theoretical terms. However, I engaged in member checking of the actual data throughout the research process. For example, I summarised some of what had been discussed previously if I wished to pursue a topic as in in this excerpt in which I summarised the content of the previous interview which had addressed Parks’ communication before undergoing surgery, so that I could ask about his experiences post-surgery (Parks, 2, 19):

Karen Ok, Parks, given that you can almost adjust your competency with a

machine, in the last interview you brought up some really interesting points, and one of the points that you brought up was that you were unintelligible, chose a lot of the time to just not communicate because it was easier, but a lot of the time you were excluded from communication because you were unintelligible. Does this still happen today?

11.4 Generalisability

According to Silverman (2011), the generalisability of qualitative research can be enhanced by “purposive sampling guided by time and resources and theoretical sampling” (p. 394). The grounded theory methods employed in this study, and which have been described in the preceding sections, are consistent with this recommendation.

11.5 Concerns about accuracy

Through the process of the research period, I became aware that the accuracy of the

transcriptions, although very useful and at times essential, was not critical. I had field notes and memos, a research diary as well as regular conversations with my research assistant. In

143 this way, I came to see why Glaser (2002, cited by Charmaz, 2006, p. 16) wrote that “all is data”: the analyses were not dependent upon a line-by-line or incident to incident basis alone. Glaser (1998, cited by Stern, 2007, p. 118) wrote about “worrisome accuracy”, referring to what he regarded as unnecessary and invasive attention to the accuracy of the interview data. He and Strauss suggested that the researcher should not see accurate data as the only and complete evidence. They suggested instead, that the essential information would become apparent and obvious, and would be remembered by the researcher. Covan (2007), once a student of Strauss, commented that he taught her that she should not be too concerned about transcribing or recording because he stressed that “if something were important, we would see or hear it again” (p. 68).

Stern (2007) recommended that instead of concerning oneself with every word of every transcription, that the researcher should take on a “search and seizure operation” (p. 118), looking at but beyond the actual transcriptions. This was a very useful recommendation given the difficulties that the participants had with communication. It was a particularly reassuring approach when there were sections of the recordings that were unintelligible and could not be transcribed. This search and seizure approach allowed me to chunk sections of whole

interviews and to comment on them, when very little was communicated over time. It was also useful when analysing sections in which the participants grappled with ways in which to express themselves. Despite being assured by Glaser and Strauss that the accuracy of the transcriptions was not always critical, I was concerned that taking on this search and seize approach, as well as depending more on my notes and memos than on transcriptions might have led me away from the data. Charmaz (2006) warned that this could happen if

researchers do not work with transcriptions, because the assumption is the participants’ views and actions have been captured. As Charmaz (2006, p. 70) wrote, “An emphasis on

plausibility rather than thoroughness and systematic study risks constructing superficial analyses” (p.70). The constant comparative method, however, allowed me to keep going back to the transcriptions, and to determine what the gaps were that could be followed up.

The length of time over which the study was conducted, and the fact that I met with the participants on multiple occasions, mitigated the effects of unintelligibility and/or incomprehensibility. I had the opportunity to go over topics, to probe deeper, to ask for clarification, and to hear of different experiences that confirmed my previous interpretations. I got to know each participant over a period of no less than 6-months, and so became familiar with their communication patterns over time, which made communication more authentic.

144 Not only was I more familiar with their communication patterns, but we became more

familiar on a personal level, and this trust and collaboration allowed me to probe, as well as to indicate more comfortably when I had not understood what the participant meant.

11.6 Voice

This is a study based on conversations with communicatively disabled adults. Paradoxically, communicatively disabled people participated in a study that required that they be included in the communicative world of the oral research interview, so that their conversations could be supported and heard: a feat for both the participants as well as the researcher. The partnership between the participants and the researcher led to a shared construction of the data.

On repeated occasions, I reminded the participants that I wanted to hear their voices, and asked them to tell me if I was not hearing what they were saying. I stressed to them the importance of their honesty with me. My standard line was “This research is about you. It’s not about what I think, so if I am saying things that you did not say, please tell me. Don’t feel bad…I need to represent you, not me”.

The participants were eager to participate in the research, were willing to share with me personal, and sometimes painful, experiences. They kept in touch with me, sometimes e mailing me to request an interview. In my research diary, quite early in the research process, I wrote about my sense that the participants were appreciative of the opportunity to engage personally with someone who was not daunted by their communication difficulties. In time, I came to appreciate the value that the participants put on participating in the research. Their enthusiasm and willingness to share their stories with me helped to ensure that their voices were heard.

I reflected on the representation of the voices of the participants throughout the research process, and have included some of these reflections in the results sections of the study.