Trustworthiness ­‐ Credibility

Credibility  is  an  assessment  as  to  whether  study  outcomes  signify  a   trustworthy  conceptual  interpretation  of  the  data  drawn  from  the  

participants’  original  data  (Lincoln  &  Guba,  1985,  296).  To  address  credibility,   I  took  the  following  steps:  

Firstly,  in  order  to  achieve  the  importance  of  incorporating  correct   operational  measures  for  the  concepts  being  studied,  I  adopted  well-­‐

established  research  methods:  the  specific  procedures  employed,  such  as  the   line  of  questioning  pursued  in  the  data  gathering  sessions  and  the  methods  of   data  analysis  derived  from  those  that  had  been  effectively  exploited  in  

previous  similar  projects.      

Secondly,  I  familiarised  myself  with  the  culture  of  the  participating  

organisation  before  the  first  data  collection  took  place.  This  was  achieved  via   consultation  of  appropriate  documents  and  preliminary  visit  to  the  

organisation  itself.  The  advantage  here  was  that  I  was  an  insider  within  the   institution.    

Thirdly,  as  discussed  in  4.5.2  above,  I  selected  a  combination  of  two  sampling   approaches:  snowballing  (opportunity)  sampling  and  opportunity  sampling.    

What  is  more,  examination  of  previous  research  findings  to  assess  the  degree   to  which  the  project’s  results  are  congruent  with  those  of  past  studies  was   one  of  my  main  priorities.  Silverman  (2011)  considers  that  the  ability  of  the   researcher  to  relate  his  or  her  findings  to  an  existing  body  of  knowledge  is  a   key  criterion  for  evaluating  works  of  qualitative  inquiry.  In  this  respect,   works  of  previous  studies  in  similar  organisations  and  addressing   comparable  issues  had  been  explored  and  the  literature  on  the   internationalisation  in  HE  topic  was  reviewed.    

Furthermore,  in  my  research  I  made  use  of  triangulation  through  different   methods,  such  as  focus  groups,  individual  interviews  and  document  analysis.  

Even  though  focus  groups  and  individual  interviews  suffer  from  some   common  methodological  shortcomings,  since  both  are  interviews  of  a  kind,   their  distinct  characteristics  also  result  in  individual  strengths  (Shenton,   2004).  According  to  Guba  (1981)  and  Brewer  and  Hunter  (1989)  the  use  of   different  methods  compensates  for  their  individual  restrictions  and  exploits   their  respective  profit.  Where  possible,  I  obtained  supporting  data  may  from   documents  to  offer  a  wider  background  and  verify  the  data  that  participants   had  supplied.  

To  take  advantage  of  another  form  of  triangulation,  I  used  of  a  wide  range  of   informants.  Their  individual  experiences  and  opinions  were  verified  against   others  and,  eventually,  a  rich  picture  of  the  attitudes  of  those  under  scrutiny   was  constructed,  based  on  the  contributions  of  a  wide  range  of  people:   students,  lecturers,  support  staff  and  senior  managers  (Shenton,  2004).      

Moreover,  in  my  inquiry,  site  triangulation  was  achieved  by  the  participation   of  informants  to  reduce  the  effect  on  the  study  of  particular  local  factors   peculiar  to  one  institution.  Even  though  I  collected  my  data  from  one  

institution,  the  focus  groups,  interviews  and  questionnaires  were  carried  out   at  four  separate  campuses.  Where  comparable  results  emerged  at  different   sites,  it  is  hoped,  therefore,  that  the  results  might  have  greater  credibility  in   the  eyes  of  the  reader  (Shenton,  2004).  

As  for  encouraging  honesty,  each  participant  was  given  opportunities  to   refuse  to  participate  in  the  project  to  ensure  that  the  data  collection  sessions   involved  only  those  who  were  genuinely  willing  to  take  part  and  prepared  to   offer  data  freely.  Information  sheets  offered  to  participants  at  the  start  of  the   project  (see  Appendix  B)  stressed  this  condition  prior  to  their  decision  to   take  part  in  the  project.  In  focus  group  discussions,  I  also  indicated  that  there   were  no  right  answers  to  the  questions  that  would  be  asked  as  well  as  

emphasising  my  independent  status  and  impartiality.  My  impression  is  that   participants,  therefore,  and  particularly  staff,  openly  contributed  when   talking  about  their  experiences  without  the  fear  of  losing  credibility  in  the  

eyes  of  managers  of  the  organisation.  It  was  made  clear  to  participants  that   they  had  the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  study  at  any  point.    

As  Shenton  (2004)  argues,  iterative  questioning  might  be  used  to  uncover   deliberate  falsehoods.  I  did  not  need  to  use  probes  to  elicit  detailed  data  and   iterative  questioning  often.  Occasionally,  I  returned  to  issues  previously   raised  by  other  participants  and  pulled  out  related  data  through  rephrased   questions.  If  contradictions  appeared,  they  were  discarded  from  the  data.  I   also  paid  attention  to  the  discrepancies  and  offer  possible  explanations  in  the   discussion  chapter.  

In  addition,  to  check  how  congruent  the  findings  were,  I  regularly  held   debriefing  sessions  with  my  supervisor.  Through  discussions,  my  view  was   widened  as  others  brought  their  experiences  and  different  perceptions.  In   particular,  my  supervisor  was  supportive  when  one  of  the  participants  of  one   focus  group  did  not  agree  with  the  transcription  I  provided  for  verification   and  requested  further  changes  to  how  and  what  she  said.    

In  addition,  throughout  the  process  of  working  on  my  thesis  I  have  had  many   opportunities  for  scrutiny  of  my  project  by  my  fellow  student  researchers   from  the  institute,  colleagues,  peers  and  other  academics.  Their  fresh  

perspectives  have  challenged  my  assumptions,  raising  the  possibility  that  my   closeness  to  my  project  inhibited  my  ability  to  perceive  it  in  an  objective  way,   enabling  me  to  refine  my  methods  accordingly  and  develop  a  greater  ability   to  explain  the  research  design  and  defend  my  decisions.  

Once  I  start  collecting  data,  I  evaluated  my  project  as  it  developed  through   reflection,  part  of  which  was  devoted  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  techniques   that  were  employed.  The  reflective  commentary  was  used  to  record  my   initial  impressions  of  each  data  collection  session,  patterns  appearing  to   emerge  in  the  data  collected  and  theories  generated.  As  Guba  and  Lincoln   (1989)  suggest,  “progressive  subjectivity”,  or  the  monitoring  of  the  

researcher’s  own  developing  constructions,  is  critical  in  establishing   credibility.    

According  to  Patton  (2002),  the  credibility  of  the  researcher  is  especially   important  in  qualitative  research  as  it  is  the  researcher  who  is  the  major   instrument  of  data  collection  and  analysis.  Alkin,  Daillak  and  White  (1979)   suggest  that  a  scrutineer’s  trust  in  the  researcher  is  of  equal  importance  to   the  adequacy  of  the  procedures  themselves.  I  followed  Maykut  and  

Morehouse’  (1994)  recommendation  and  included  personal  and  professional   information  relevant  to  the  phenomenon  under  study  as  well  as  providing   information  on  how  I  was  funded.  Any  approvals  given  to  the  project  by   those  offering  access  to  the  organisation  and  individual  participants  were   also  made  explicit.  

Finally,  considered  to  be  the  single  most  important  element  in  boosting  a   study’s  credibility,  member  checking  was  implemented  into  my  inquiry   (Guba  and  Lincoln,  1989).  Shenton  (2004)  suggests  that  checks  relating  to   the  accuracy  of  the  data  may  take  place  “on  the  spot”  in  the  course,  and  at  the   end  of  the  data  collection  period.  As  a  result,  I  provided  informants  with   transcripts  of  dialogues  in  which  they  participated.  Here  the  emphasis  was   on  whether  the  informants  considered  that  their  words  matched  what  they   actually  intended  to  say,  since,  if  a  digital  recorder  was  used,  the  articulations   themselves  should  at  least  have  been  accurately  captured  (Shenton,  2004).   The  meetings  with  supervisors  drew  my  attention  to  being  more  accurate   when  transcribing,  therefore,  flaws  in  the  proposed  course  of  action  were   identified  instantly  (Shenton,  2004).  The  meetings  gave  me  opportunities  to   test  my  developing  ideas  and  interpretations  as  well  as  confirming  and   rejecting  my  own  biases  and  preferences.  

Another  element  of  member  checking  involved  verification  of  my  emerging   theories  and  inferences  formed  during  the  dialogues.  This  strategy  is   recommended  by  Brewer  and  Hunter  (1989)  and  Miles  and  Huberman  

offered  insights  into  my  theoretical  framework.  The  importance  of  

developing  such  a  formative  understanding  is  recognised  by  Van  Maanen   (1983):  

Analysis  and  verification  .  .  .  is  something  one  brings  forth  with   them  from  the  field,  not  something  which  can  be  attended  to   later,  after  the  data  are  collected.  When  making  sense  of  field   data,  one  cannot  simply  accumulate  information  without   regard  to  what  each  bit  of  information  represents  in  terms  of   its  possible  contextual  meanings.