Transparency and verification method

This study pays attention to some specific concerns usually raised on qualitative interpretive research. Transparency of research procedures and validity of inferences and conceptual claims are two major questions raised for qualitative case studies. Both aspects are relevant and important for the purpose of this research. The preceding sections‘ detailed descriptions of data collection and analysis processes aims to ensure the transparency of research procedures.

‗Validity‘ is another important aspect which this study wishes to ascertain. Although there is no one definition to date on the concept of ‗validity‘ in qualitative research (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007: 233), this study follows Joseph A. Maxwell‘s takes on the ‗issues of validity‘ while referring to ‗the correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account‘ (as cited inas cited inYin, 2010: 79). According to Joseph A. Maxwell, validity pertains to the kind of understanding embodied in the accounts and he categorizes ‗validity‘ into ‗descriptive validity‘, ‗interpretive validity‘, ‗theoretical validity‘, generalizability and evaluative validity (Huberman and Miles, 2002: 43). This research considers these categories in strengthening the validity of empirical accounts and conceptual propositions of this study.

Joseph A. Maxwell considers factual accuracy as a primary aspect of validity and refers to it as ‗descriptive validity‘, as description is fundamental to qualitative research (Huberman and Miles, 2002: 45). Thick descriptions in the empirical chapters of the current study, with verbatim quotations where relevant, are intended to provide the empirical accounts with greater accuracy. Such description is made possible by the eleven months of field work which allowed the researcher to obtain in-depth understanding on the way multiple actors engage in implementation of FOA and RBC norms. Detailed description of empirical accounts also

serves another important aspect of validity, i.e. generalizability. Although the concept of generalization is less employed in qualitative research, scholars recognize the possibility of ‗transferability‘ of hypotheses from situation to situation depending on the degree of temporal and contextual similarity (as cited in Huberman and Miles, 2002: 178). Janet Ward Schofield states that clear and detailed description descriptions about the entity of study and its setting are crucial for transferability of hypothesis in qualitative researches (Huberman and Miles, 2002: 178-179, 198-199).

In addition to factual accuracy of empirics, ‗interpretive validity‘ is relevant to this research as the main purpose of this study is to comprehend the norm practices in Myanmar through the eyes of the participants and to capture the meaning participants place on the information they provide. ‗Interpretive validity‘ is understood as ‗a matter of inference from the words and actions of participants in the situation studied‘ (Huberman and Miles, 2002: 49). This researcher has an advantage in capturing meanings with greater accuracy, being a native speaker in the site of the research with most of the participants being native participants. This study‘s interpretive inferences are described in such a way that the readers can validate independently.

To strengthen ‗interpretive validity‘, the technique of ‗triangulation‘ is employed to verify the information and to draw on converging information. Among four types of triangulation suggested by Robert K. Yin to strengthen the validity of case studies—‗data source triangulation‘, ‗analyst triangulation‘, ‗theory/perspective triangulation‘ and ‗method triangulation‘ (Yin, 2013: 323-324)—data source triangulation and perspective triangulation apply to this research‘s data collection and analysis processes. Figures 2 and 3 display a diagram on data source and perspective triangulations. Information for this research is sourced in multiple ways: personal observation, interviews and relevant secondary documents. During the process of data analysis, the study searches the converging findings from three different kinds of sources; field data, observed data and documents. In addition, interviews data, generated from diverse groups of stakeholders in the implementation of FOA and RBC norms in the country, make possible for perspective triangulation in drawing inferences which are reflective of the diverse perspectives. Research participants from responsible government officials, business owners, civil society organizations and international actors allows the study to understand the variegated norm implementation processes of two international norms from diverse perspectives.

Figure 3 Data Sources Triangulation

Source: Designed by the researcher

Figure 4 Perspectives Triangulation

Potential interpretation biases and researchers‘ observation biases are carefully addressed by employing ‗participant validation‘ or ‗respondent feedback‘, a technique usually recommended by several scholars (Creswell and Miller, 2000: 124, Whittemore et al., 2001: 533, Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007: 239, Yin, 2010: 79). Before finalizing the report, the researcher sought feedback on the information provided by the participants, and the researcher‘s interpretation and conclusion is based on the information they provided during the interviews, document reviews and observations.

This research agrees with S. B. Greene‘s reminder that ‗interpretive inquiry is not the sole creation of the investigator, as is the case with the artist and created art; rather, research involves the ―joint creation of inquirer and inquired about in a given context at a given time‖‘ (as cited in Whittemore et al., 2001: 526). Therefore, valid voices of participants are carefully taken into account. During iterated reading of interview transcripts, the researcher interpreted the information seeing through the lens of the participants and tried to understand what political transition, legal reforms and new mechanisms mean to the participants and how these things shape their views on the respective norms, and how do transitioning generated structural changes facilitate or restrict participants‘ capacity to act on the respective norm. Such an approach of seeing through the eyes of participants without compromising the neutrality of the researcher‘s position aims to mitigate the case studies‘ incipient weaknesses of potential bias and subjective interpretation by researchers influencing research outcomes (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011: 308-311).