Trustworthiness, credibility and authenticity in the research process

It is acknowledged within qualitative research there are a number of approaches to scientific rigour in the research process. Truth is often at the heart of this debate and it is suggested by Holloway & Freshwater that this truth within narrative studies is a snapshot of that moment in time and based on the truth for that particular individual at that moment in time. It is therefore more applicable to use notions of trustworthiness, credibility and authenticity to ‘reconceptualise’ validity and reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

Trustworthiness, according to Lincoln & Guba, was composed of dependability, credibility, transferability and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba in Holloway & Freshwater, 2007). In the context of this the study these areas have been explored in order to satisfy validity and reliability. Dependability is based on the narrative of the researcher, the consistent and dependable approach to the research process, and the articulation of this. Being reflexive throughout the process enables this to be articulated, with decisions being clear to the reader. The keeping of a reflexive diary and blog encouraged this reflexivity within the study. Credibility is linked to internal validity in that the representation of the narrative is true to its original meaning and the reader should feel the account is plausible (Holloway & Freshwate,r 2007). Within this study this was encouraged through the sharing of transcripts and the researcher’s interpretations for discussion within the supervision team. This enabled any challenges to interpretation to be fully discussed. Transferability, as suggested by Lincoln & Guba, occurs where the findings within a specific context would be meaningful to others in a similar context. The researcher, on a regular basis, tested this by sharing interim and the final findings at professional research conferences (see appendix 7) and receiving feedback from other learning disability nurses that supported transferability. Confirmability relates to the evaluation and confirmation

that the aims of the study have been met by the conclusions and findings of the study. Part of the process of undertaking this study has been ongoing supervision and advice to ensure the aims of the study are met through the chosen methodology and subsequent choices of analytical frameworks.

Authenticity within qualitative research, it is suggested, is composed of fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002). Fairness is judged through the approach to the participants, including ongoing informed consent illustrated within this study as participants are offered the opportunity to not only opt out at all stages but contact is also maintained in order for participants all to feel part of the study throughout. Authenticity within the study related to the adequacy of the research process but also the participants’ involvement in a process of narrating their journey into nursing, their feelings, and their experiences through a biographical narrative approach with a minimally structured interview encouraging insight into their own situation and their future. This was evident with a number of participants who described the interview process as ‘cathartic’ or ‘valuable for reflection’, and one participant who felt she had a ‘view about where she wanted to go in the future’.

3.9 Conclusion

This chapter has explored the philosophical and methodological basis for this study, focusing the methods chosen in order to meet the aims of the study. In addition, the process of data collection, analysis and interpretation are described in order to understand the findings of the study.

Chapter 4 Findings

4.1 Introduction

This is the first of three chapters that detail the findings of my study. In this chapter, we ‘meet the participants’ of the study who are presented in vignette form with a combination of a precis of their career narrative and observations taken from my field notes at the time of interview. This approach draws on the work of Wengraf (2001) in relation to Biographical Narrative Interpretive Method, in that it is the creation of a ‘case’ to be analysed enabling themes to be identified within and then across cases. The use of vignettes to present findings in research of this nature was also supported by Holloway and Jefferson (2008) and by Freshwater and Holloway (2007) as an opportunity to enable the reader to understand the participant backgrounds.

Table 1 is a brief summary of the participants’ data around year of qualification as a learning disability nurse, their role at the time of interview, and whether they were working in NHS or non NHS settings. Data presented in this way highlights the timeline that form part of this project, the 30 years between the publication of the Jay Committee report in 1979 and 2009 when the study began. Whilst all of the participants who took part in the study were registered as learning disability nurses on the NMC register, their roles vary, both in relation to title and in relation to the service context of NHS or non-NHS provision. This diversity was not pre-planned as part of the selection criteria, but came naturally out of self-selection.

Table 1 : Participant Data Pseudonym Year of qualification Role NHS or non NHS

Tina 1965 Retired Nurse Non

Mary 1974 Retired nurse lecturer Non

Robert 1980 Community team manager NHS

Lorna 1981 Public Health Specialist NHS

Karen 1982 Nurse lecturer Non

Paula 1984 Locality manager NHS

Matthew 1985 Company Director Non

Annette 1987 Deputy Care manager Non

David 1987 Modern Matron NHS

Jane 1989 Community Nurse NHS

Martin 1991 Nurse (assessment & treatment) NHS

Quinn 1992 Lead nurse (Community team) NHS

Dean 1996 Programme Lead (Commissioning) NHS

Ryan 1998 Practice development Nurse NHS

Julie 2002 Nurse ( Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services )

NHS

Narisa 2004 Acute Liaison Nurse NHS

Debbie 2006 Health facilitator NHS

Angela 2008 Developmental Charge Nurse Non

Jenny 2008 Team Leader (supported living) Non