Chapter 2: Literature Review
3.8 Research Rigour, Trustworthiness and Quality
The evaluative criteria of ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ are central to quantitative
research. These are seen as protecting the research and its findings from criticisms of
‘bias’ and as quality assurance measures (Golafshani, 2003). ‘Reliability’ refers to the replicability of research findings using the same methodology. Joppe (2000: 1)
defines reliability as: “The extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study”. ‘Validity’ refers to the accuracy of the research (Joppe, 2000; Babbie, 2015), including the extent to which the research measures what it intended to (construct validity), coherence between data and theory (internal validity) and the generalisability of research findings beyond the immediate research context (external validity) (Trochim et al., 2015; Bryman, 2016).
Given the different paradigms which these two approaches subscribe to the question of how ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ should be assessed in qualitative research is the source of much debate. Whereas quantitative research is concerned with manipulation of phenomena under study, causal relationships between variables, prediction,
hypothesis, statistics and generalisability, qualitative research is concerned with meaning, understanding phenomena in-depth in the settings in which they naturally occur. Thus, whereas quantitative analysis takes more of a deductive ‘top-down’
approach and seeks to test a pre-existing hypothesis quantitative analysis is more inductive, exploratory, ‘bottom-up’ and ‘data driven’, allowing theory to emerge from the data itself.
125
Some scholars argue that researchers should endeavour to replicate these principles of validity and reliability in qualitative research (Patton, 2001) whilst others have been critical of these criteria and argue that they do not apply to qualitative research in the same way (Lincoln and Guba, 195; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). This latter group of scholars instead propose other criteria to replace these concepts, such as:
‘trustworthiness’, ‘credibility’, ‘sensitivity’, ‘commitment’, ‘transparency’’
‘coherency’ and ‘rigour’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Seal, 1999; Golafshani, 2004;
Shenton, 2004; Nowell et al., 2017).
A commonly referenced framework for evaluating qualitative research is that proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985), in which they also proposed techniques for achieving these criteria. The four pillars of this framework are: Credibility,
Confirmability, Dependability and Transferability. ‘Credibility’ refers to the ‘truth value’. It is similar to the concept of ‘internal validity’ in positivist terms and refers to the coherence between data collected and theory generated. Techniques for achieving credibility include: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer debriefing, member checking and negative case analysis. Confirmability in qualitative research is less about researchers’ efforts to maintain neutrality and freedom from bias (as in quantitative research) than about researchers’ efforts to engage with the
phenomena under study, ethically and in ‘good faith’. To achieve this, Lincoln and Guba (1985) advocate research reflexivity, triangulation and an audit trail (i.e. the transparent and explicit description of the steps taken throughout the research process).
Dependability refers to the ‘reliability’ of research. However, in qualitative research, this is less about whether research findings can be replicated than whether the research process was coherent, transparent and consistent. To the end, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest providing an “inquiry audit”, i.e. having an external researcher
126
examine the process and findings of the research. Transferability refers to the
‘applicability’ of research findings to other contexts, and is most similar to ‘external validity’ and generalisability in the positivist paradigm. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that providing a ‘thick description’ of the so that one can evaluate to what extent research conclusions are applicable to other settings, times, situations and participants. Below, I will discuss the steps taken to ensure the quality, rigour and trustworthiness of this research by addressing Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) 4 criteria.
One of the benefits of using ethnography is that it enables researchers to use multiple methods through which to explore a single topic. The findings and theory generated in this thesis were triangulated between data methods, e.g. interviews, observations and clinic documentation, between different participants, e.g. clinicians and recipients and between 2 field sites. The long-term duration of observations also enabled me to verify findings longitudinally, to contextualise phenomena within the wider context of the clinic and to build rapport and trust with participants, encouraging them be more open and honest in their interactions with me. The systematic recording of
information about a large number of matches at each clinic also enabled comparison of participants’ discourses and with material practices; the accuracy of quantified information was checked with clinics’ own recorded before analysis. The findings of this thesis are also coherent with the findings of research on donor-recipient matching in transnational and international contexts of egg donation.
The process of designing the research, fieldwork, data analysis and interpretation, were discussed confidentially with my supervisor, with scholars in the field and, where possible, with clinicians and recipients during fieldwork. Efforts were made to undertake all stages in this research process reflexivity, inclusively and ethically. I critically engaged with the process of research, noting down personal reflections, discussing my experiences, reflections and emergent findings confidentially with my
127
supervisor and peers and shared emergent themes with participants. An audit trail of the choices made in different stages of this thesis and the reason for making them has been detailed so that they could be traced and re-evaluated. My own interests in the research topic, the purpose of the study, and methods used to recruit participants, collect data and analyse data were made transparent and explicit, as were the inferences made.
The small size of this study and the rapidly changing field of egg donation through techno-scientific, policy and organisational developments limit the applicability of the findings of this research to other contexts. For example, since fieldwork was
undertaken there has been as increase in egg freezing, the importation of donor eggs and websites enabling recipients to choose their own donor, all of which shape the organisation of matching and did not feature in this study. The different organisational dynamics of other fertility clinics in different parts of the UK might also limit the extent to which the findings of this study might be applicable elsewhere.
This study was intended to be in-depth and as such the sacrifice of having limited transferability was accepted from the outset. However, the thick description of the research settings, participants, methodology used and data gathered enable external evaluation of the ways in which the research context shaped the findings and conclusions of this study, and the extent to which these conclusions may be transferable to other time periods, settings, participants and situations.
3.9 Summary
This study follows a constructionist approach and used an ethnographic approach to explore the organisation of matching and the perceptions and practices of clinic and recipients in the context of two private fertility clinics in South East England.
128
To enable this, the research methodology adopted multiple data collection methods namely observations of consultations and clinical practices, clinicians interviews, recipients interviews as well as available documentation on and about the clinics.
These methods not only allowed a rich collection of data but also supported triangulation and a deeper understanding of the ways in which perspectives and practices were linked (and not linked) and related (and not related) to each other. The ethical considerations, sampling and recruitment methods, sample characteristics, data collection methods and data analysis method pertaining to this study were also outlined, as were my own selective reflections on the experience of fieldwork.
Finally, processes of quality assurance in qualitative research as they applied to this study were discussed. The next chapter will provide the background and context to the empirical findings of this thesis (presented in Chapters 5-8).
129