STANDARDS FOR RESEARCH QUALITY

In their early work, Glaser & Strauss (1965) refer to qualitative research as a preliminary, exploratory effort to quantitative research. They mention quantitative approaches as over-emphasizing testing of hypotheses and de-emphasizing the discovering of relevant conceptual aspects for the substantive area being researched.

Credibility

In relation to qualitative research, Glaser & Strauss argue, in their work, for the collection and analysis of the credibility of the data by using comparison groups. In their opinion, the researcher’s study of other qualitative data (e.g. interviews, adding field note, events of persons) can enable them to make a judgment about their theory as a framework and realise the discovery of substantive theory (hypotheses out of concepts for a substantive research area, such as patient care or gang behaviour). Their arguments already reflect on the coding process they would publish in their later work (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Charmaz (2006) relates quality and ‘credibility’ of a research study to the collection of enough background data about persons, processes, and settings. She points out the interpretive positions, which bring grounded theorists into the research process (p. 180):

Triangulation

Locke (2003) links credibility with theoretical sampling in order to extend general applicability, which Locke also expresses as the analytical generalizability of the theory. In his opinion, comparison groups as analytic procedures have greater analytic generalisability.

The term generality emerges from the analytic process instead of being a prescribed goal, as Charmaz (2006) notes. She argues that even minimizing the significance of data that do not fit their emerging categories can emphasise grounded theory.

Locke (2003) mentions going to other sources for guidance and relates data gathering practices in Glaser & Strauss’ ground work (1967) to what is nowadays referred to as triangulation. The term stands for data collection from multiple sources, such as semi- structured interviews, field-observations, as well as from archival sources. Strauss & Corbin (1998) view triangulation as an interplay of different methods and field notes as an observational part of the data analyses. They do not relate triangulation to different research sources in the traditional sense. They reflect on the coding procedure.

Bitsch (2005) argues for grounded theory as the methodology of developing inductive theories, which are grounded in gathered and analysed data in a systematic way. Sampling (drawing) decisions are grounded in the emerging concepts, thus, they evolve during the research process.

Confirmability by objectivity

Confirmability is deemed to be the qualitative aspect, which allows for greater objectivity. Bitsch (2005) mentions objectivity through tools such as member checks to ensure that replies are obtained from the interviewees. Audit trail should allow the tracking of data to its sources through the description of research design collection and methods.

Strauss & Corbin (1998) stay related to an objective stance: comparing incidents in the data to better stay grounded in them. This does not entirely remove the potential for biased interpretations. Thus, the researcher should turn to literature or experience to find examples of similar phenomena and to think of properties of dimensions. Therefore, the greater the number of persons interviewed or observed, the more the researcher will be able to check interpretations against alternative explanations.

Indicators representing research quality are considered in Table 8.

Criteria Critics Solution

Reliability Replicability, using more than one questionnaire as an instrument will not reproduce the same results or answers, due to own characteristics and background influence in qualitative research

Generation of audit trail as sequential steps in the research, similar observations should be reached by other observers

Validity (qualitative approach)

Not measurable, unlike quantitative research

Accurate reflection on the research, member checking by showing results and asking research members for their comments (remark: Daymon & Holloway (2011) call this internal validity; Wahyuni, (2012) mentions this as parallels to credibility), consideration of a sufficient number of perspectives (remark: Glaser & Strauss, (1965) relate this to using comparative groups; later, (1967) regarded as coding process)

Sampling (relating to Not wholly determined prior Different perspectives about grounded research as to the research, but proceeds the data to be collected have theoretical sampling) throughout to be included, a theoretical sampling strategy (coding) provides a clear justification for included sampling units, sampling stops at the point of data saturation with no arising ideas

Generalisability Findings and conclusions not fixed as in law-like pattern of quantitative research, due to interpretive worldview

Formulating of rules or propositions for circum- stances, to be related to (Daymon & Holloway (2011) call this also external validity), theory-based gener- alisation by transferring verified original data to other sites sample, should be sufficiently diverse to allow interferences to other contexts

Brief summary

Objectivity Human biases cannot be removed in qualitative research

Reflection on and acknowl- edgment of standpoints in the research to be taken into account by readers for their own interpretations (Wahyuni, (2012)) mentions this with parallels to confirmability, Strauss & Corbin (1998) argue for finding similar phenomena as properties and dimensions, equal to the grounded research approach)

Triangulation Contexts may not be crucial in determining how people express themselves

Combination of more than one perspective to provide a more complete picture, this can be multiple sources, theoretical interpretations or methods as interviews, documents and question- naires (Strauss & Corbin (1998) reflect on the coding procedure)

Reflexivity Self-critical stance of author is important, excessive navel gazing has to be avoided

Focus on participants, own reflective chapter with assumptions and preconcep- tions and information on the way in which values and knowledge have been influenced often added to increase research reliability

Table 8: Criteria for quality of research

Source: The author, based on Daymon & Holloway (2011), Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson (2012),

Glaser & Strauss (1965), Glaser & Strauss (1967), Strauss & Corbin (1998), Wahyuni (2012)

Some expressions from the field of research quality are used alternatively in academic literature: In Wahyuni’s literature review (2012), credibility is referred to as a parallel to internal validity and confirmability as a parallel to objectivity. Locke (2003) relates credibility to theoretical sampling, and thus to the early work of Glaser & Strauss (1967). With respect to qualitative research, Glaser & Strauss (1965) argue for comparative groups in their earlier work. A concluding overall expression is presented by Daymon &

Holloway (2011) in their summary about ensuring qualitative research; they require qualitative aspects to be rigorous in the procedures, showing how research can be trusted.

5 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS