Trustworthiness

Because qualitative research is value-laden, a frequently articulated concern refers to the

assessment of the value of the obtained results and the standard applied in the process of

generating these. This holds true, as Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, and Spiers (2008, p. 14) rightfully argue: “Without rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction, and loses its utility”.

Indeed, a research project that does not apply adequate standards to ensure quality of its

execution may genuinely be categorised as useless. However, it is vital to consider that the

criteria, upon which a research project is to be evaluated, do not necessarily always have to

be the same. Within the context of quantitative research the concepts of validity, reliability

and generalisability are widely accepted as dominant factors to evaluate the utility of a

research project (Bryman, 2012; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

There is a tendency to also evaluate qualitative research based on these criteria. This may

be because the philosophical framework underlying this usually finds less acceptance than

in the case of quantitative research (Yardley, 2000). In practice, the lack of acceptance of

qualitative methods may have negative implications on research funding and publications,

which may have led to the increased focus on reassessing evaluation criteria for qualitative

research (Bryman, 2012). Whilst some try to adapt quantitative criteria to assess qualitative

research (R. B. Johnson, 1997) others reject this approach (Seidman, 2013). For this research the criteria postulated by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Yardley (2000) have been

adopted to ensure trustworthiness:

Lincoln and Guba (1985) advocate the assessment of qualitative research in terms of

trustworthiness, materialised along four dimensions: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. At the core of trustworthiness is the question: “How can an inquirer

persuade his or her audiences (including the self) that the findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to, worth taking account of?” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290).

Credibility relates predominantly to the execution of research according to what is Bryman

(2012) called ‘good practices’. To fulfil this criteria the rationale in selecting the respective

research methodology and methods, as-well-as the research process in general, are clearly

described and discussed throughout this chapter. This includes the adopted research

paradigm as-well-as the inherent methodological implications in terms of discourse and

language, the neglect of methodological individualism and the role of values that have been

addressed in section 4.1. In section 4.4 details about the research design, encompassing the

research objectives, definition of respondents, medium of communication, interview guide,

engagement of respondents, the interview execution and the following data analysis are

thoroughly discussed. Transferability is regarded as another component of trustworthy

research. Because generalisations are not feasible the focus is put on transferability, which

is achieved by providing thick descriptions of the process and results and if possible working

hypotheses, generated through the findings (Geertz, 1973; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In

Chapter 5 a significant amount of these thick descriptions in the form of citations from the

interviews are presented and extensively discussed throughout the chapter as-well-as in

Chapter 6 and 7. This extensive process is testament to the rigour of the analysis. Taken

together these provide others with the means to evaluate transferability of the findings to other settings (Bryman, 2012). Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that results

cannot be detached from the specific context within which they have been generated, which

in this case is shovel maintenance within Komatsu Chile.

The aspect of dependability refers to the proper documentation of the research process,

consisting in field notes and interview scripts, which allow a third researcher to audit the

findings for their quality (Bryman, 2012). For the purpose of this work, interview scripts and

of the research process and its findings become feasible. Beyond this, the analysis of the

generated data was thoroughly documented, providing an audit trail that can be used to

assess the quality of the results afterwards (King & Horrocks, 2010; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

However, this does not imply that a third person would have obtained the same results,

because according to social constructionism, they are always dependent upon the position

from which they are constructed (Burr, 2003).

The final aspect to evaluate the trustworthiness of qualitative research is confirmability,

which aims to prove the good faith of the researcher in conducting the research (Bryman,

2012). Rather than highlighting the objectivity of the investigator, as would be required in

quantitative approaches, the aim of this aspect is to indicate in detail the process of data

collection and the consequent analyses that have led to the conclusions (King & Horrocks,

2010). The results and analysis that have led to the revised theoretical framework are clearly

documented in the subsequent chapter.

In addition to these, Yardley (2000) suggests four complementing criteria in assessing the

value of qualitative research: sensitivity to context refers to the suggestion that the

qualitative researcher should be adequately familiar with the theoretical context, obtained

through the review of the relevant literature and other empirical data as-well-as the socio-

cultural setting, which includes the perspective of the participants as-well-as potential ethical

issues. Because of the extensive literature review presented in Chapter 2, the description of the research context in Chapter 3 and the ethical considerations presented in section 4.3,

this requirement has been satisfied for this research. Commitment and rigour encompass the

thorough engagement with the research project, which materialises in a clear demonstration

that all required efforts have been undertaken to answer the research questions and obtain

the research objectives adequately. This aspect is covered in Chapter 5, which clearly

depicts the results and corresponding analysis that have emerged out of the data collection

the required skills to conduct and document the project properly, which is further discussed in section 4.5 of this chapter. Transparency and coherence refers to the “clarity and cogency

– and hence rhetorical power or persuasiveness – of the description and argument”

(Yardley, 2000, p. 222). In spite of the results of the research, their value is not fully explored

as long as they are not adequately documented for others as well. It also relates to the

requirement that the argumentation and analysis remains transparent for others, outlining

why decisions have been made and how criteria have been applied. This can however, be

difficult (Bryman, 2012) because many of the underlying assumptions and worldviews of the

researcher may be deeply rooted in personal history and difficult to reveal through written

words alone. A good part of these assumptions may indeed be tacit in nature, so that even

they themselves may not be fully aware of them. Because research is a value-laden process, it is also important to be reflective about the way the researcher’s participation may

have influenced the process, which is discussed in the concluding sections of this chapter,

particularly in section 4.5.1, where reflections about insider research are presented.

Ultimately, the impact and importance are vital criteria in assessing the quality of a research

project. While this is generally not evaluated based upon the generalisability of the project, it

should still emphasise the impact on theory and practice. The concluding chapter of this

dissertation addresses these aspects.

Because of the philosophical assumptions there cannot be one universally accepted criterion in differentiating good research from bad. The points described above are rather to be understood as a “tentative agreement as to the validity and utility of a piece of research for a

certain purpose, in a particular situation, and for a specific community of people” (Yardley,

2000, p. 217). Each qualitative research project is different and therefore the extent to which

the outlined criteria above are applied will also vary (Yardley, 2000).

The pivotal message from this assessment is reflexivity about the different criteria outlined

assessment about the “methods, values, biases, and decisions for the knowledge of the

social world” (Bryman, 2012, p. 393).