TRUSTWORTHINESS, CREDIBILITY and GENERALISABILITY

Concepts of ‘validity’ and ‘reliability’ originated in the quantifiable, scientific

paradigm and many researchers have challenged their use in qualitative research (Parahoo 1997; Janesick 2000; Gergen and Gergen 2000). However, this does not mean that qualitative research is less rigorous in its approach. The issue lies with the underlying beliefs of many qualitative researchers, in other words, that many interpretations are possible when researching the complexities of human

experience and actions, there is no one right answer. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) refer to this as the ‘crisis of validity’. Janesick’s (2000, p392) view is that

‘Validity in qualitative research has to do with description and explanation and whether or not the explanation fits the description... Is the explanation credible? Qualitative researchers do not claim that there is only one way of interpreting an event There is no one “correct"interpretation.”

Qualitative researchers commonly use alternative terminology to validity and reliability, e.g. Streubert and Carpenter (1999) use trustworthiness instead of validity and reliability. They said that qualitative research is trustworthy when it accurately represents the experience of the study participants. They use the related term credibility to describe the recognition by participants of the research findings in relation to their own experiences. They also highlight the importance of

auditability, the detailing of the research process to enable another researcher to

follow the methods and conclusion.

Yin (1994) while not rejecting the terms validity and reliability instead puts forward ‘case study tactics’. He covers four specific areas: construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability, each of which is discussed below.

In dealing with construct validity, which is usually defined as the process to ensure the lines of inquiry ‘measures’ a particular construct, e.g. coping strategy (Parahoo

1997), Yin suggests:

1. Using multiple sources of evidence used in convergent lines of inquiry. 2. Establishing a chain of evidence

3. Having key participants review the report to ensure they identify with the content.

In essence these tactics help establish the trustworthiness and credibility of the data and the conclusions drawn.

In this study I used a wide range of data collection methods from a number of sources, and established an auditable trail through the data collection process, i.e. each piece of data is clearly labelled in respect of the source, time collected, location and with indications if there was related material. During stage two of the study I sent draft notes at each data collection point to the students and clinical mentors seeking confirmation that I had captured their views and feelings accurately.

In terms of internal validity, which is usually defined as the unwanted effects of internal factors on the relationship between two variables in an experiment

(Parahoo 1997), Yin suggests that an analytic tactic of ‘pattern-matching’ is a way of addressing this issue in a case study. This tactic supports the trustworthiness of the conclusions drawn. In the strategy for the analysis of the data, outlined above,

I used an iterative process to ensure themes and patterns identified from one data set were compared and contrasted with the other data sets, thus reinforcing the conclusions I was drawing. I also used the analysis of the data from stage one to inform both the data collection and analysis in stage two.

External validity relates to knowing whether a study’s findings are generalisable to other similar populations and settings. Yin (1994) takes the stance that critics of case study methodology are erroneous when

“contrasting the situation [of case studies] to survey research, in which a ‘sample ’ (if selected correctly) readily generalises to a larger universe. This analogy to samples and universes is incorrect when dealing with case studies” (p36).

His view is that the purpose should be “to generalise a particular set of results to a

broader theory” (p36). Bryman and Burgess (1999) support this position and point

out that although case study methodology has been used widely by social

scientists for many years there is a degree of controversy associated with it. This controversy is concerned with whether findings from one or more case study can be generalised. Their view is that the point of case studies is that it allowed for

generalisation to theory to occur (p. xiv). Yin does not believe generalisation is

automatic and that any theory should be tested, he describes this as “replication logic”. I was not proposing to repeat the study to test any emergent theory. However, I would contrast the findings from this study to those that had already been reported in the literature.

Finally, Yin outlines the tactics to deal with reliability. Reliability usually refers to how consistent the method is in measuring a specific phenomenon. Yin points out that in case study methodology this should mean repeating the case study in the same place and not replicating the results by doing another case study. The tactic Yin proposes involves setting out the procedures to be followed to act as a

template for another researcher to repeat the approach taken. This was clearly what Streubert and Carpenter (1999) are referring to as auditability. To address the issue of reliability, I have set out in this chapter and in chapters 6 (pages 106 -

110) and 7 (pages 166-174) details of the steps I took when conducting the study. The appendices include all of the tools I used, i.e. consent forms, information sheets, questionnaire and interview schedules.