(Source: Adapted from Bryman, 2004; Lincoln and Guba, 1985)
Credibility
As noted, credibility may be ensured through the use of “multiple accounts of social reality” (Bryman, 2004, p. 274). Feasibility or credibility is more likely to be accepted if several sources provide similar positions or points of view. The Framework approach to the management and analysis of empirical materials allowed a thorough and transparent examination of the interview transcripts and the elucidation of common categories or themes. The use of documentary sources corroborated aspects of the interview findings and contributed to the process of triangulation.
In addition, credibility is premised on the researcher demonstrating good research practice. This was secured by fulfilling the ethical approval processes, proceeding under supervision, and establishing a chain of evidence or audit trail as discussed below. I also endeavoured to be open to the beliefs, views and preferences of the participants. Credibility may also be established through participant validation so that there is confirmation that their reality is correctly understood by the researcher. The participants, therefore, had the opportunity to review and edit their interviews so their responses could accurately portray their individual perspectives. All but one of the participants returned their edited transcripts which were then utilised in the data
106 management and analysis stages of the research.63
Transferability
Publication of part of my thesis material during the period of my doctoral research, including in an internationally recognised journal, also provided evidence of external review of the findings and analysis (Hay, 2009, 2010, 2011).
Qualitative research usually entails an intensive small-scale study and thus the “findings tend to be oriented to the contextual uniqueness and significance of the aspect of the social world being studied” (Bryman, 2004, p. 275). In this respect it differs from quantitative research which is typically preoccupied with the generalisation of research findings to other contexts. As I was undertaking qualitative research I did not seek to generalise but to comprehend as fully as possible the emerging answers to the research questions. This approach was outlined earlier in regards to the research strategy and is what Geertz (1973) has called ‘thick description’. An in-depth examination of this case is, therefore, valuable in its own right and through examination and explanation will illuminate the policy domain.
However, depending on the findings of the research it was possible that theoretical generalisation might occur (Lewis & Ritchie, 2007). This concept refers to using “theoretical propositions, principles or statements from the findings of the study for more general application” (Lewis & Ritchie, 2007, p. 264). As an example, from the findings of my research I was able to elicit certain key factors that limit the likelihood of agenda success for SHRAs in the Pacific including tensions between culture and human rights, issues of state sovereignty, and the receptivity and political will of Pacific leaders. In turn these factors may also inhibit agenda success for other issues and alternatives due to the current contextual and institutional nature of the Pacific sub- region.
Dependability
The concept of dependability parallels the positivist concept of reliability and is concerned with ensuring methods are systematic, consistent and well documented
63
The participant who did not return their transcript was contacted by email on four occasions and an acknowledgement of my email was received after the second email. After the fourth email notification it was indicated that due to time constraints their transcript would be considered accepted by them for inclusion unless I heard otherwise. No further response was received from the participant and the interview material was included in the Framework process.
107 (Bryman, 2004; O’Leary, 2010). To this end Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend the use of ‘auditing’ to guarantee dependability. The researcher, for example, documents all phases of the project and allows this material to be readily accessible and readable for a peer or supervisor (Bryman, 2004). Throughout the research I have kept notes on topic formulation, selection of the participants, fieldwork notes particularly during and after interviews, data management, and analysis. The interviews have also been transcribed verbatim and given to the participants to verify and edit. Although I have not been audited, the notes are available to my supervisors and other people as appropriate and demonstrate transparency and dependability in my work.
Confirmability
The concept of confirmability recognises subjectivity in qualitative research and thus researchers are expected to have acted in a manner wherein their values and preferences do not overtly affect the research process (Bryman, 2004). Researchers should be aware of their personal values or theoretical preferences which will influence the conduct, findings or conclusions of the research. In other words a reflexive approach should be taken which “acknowledges how a researcher’s [characteristics] … influence the choices made within the study, such as the research question itself and the methods of data collection” (Kuper, Lingard & Levinson, 2008, p. 689). As mentioned above, comprehensive notes were taken at all stages of the research. I have also endeavoured to be aware of my own preferences throughout the doctoral process. As an example, one participant was particularly dismissive of the research topic and interview questions. Although I did not agree with these sentiments I applied the same management and analysis techniques to the interview transcript and so treated this person’s comments in an equitable way to the other empirical material.