Trustworthiness

In quantitative research, measures of validity (the accuracy of the research findings) and reliability (the extent to which findings can be replicated) are used to judge the quality of research. However, qualitative research adheres to a different set of criteria to establish its validity and rigour. Qualitative research is assessed based on measures of trustworthiness and authenticity (Shenton, BCCH; Lincoln and Guba, D]`E). The reason why qualitative research uses a different set of concepts is that the application of validity and reliability within conventional standards presupposes that a single absolute account of social reality is possible and the researcher’s role is to reveal such a reality (Bryman, BCDE). In contrast, qualitative research assumes multiple realities and the researcher’s role is to interpret these realities. Fossey et al. (BCCB, p. ``P) argue that this difference also:

stems from the fact that qualitative research often relies primarily on the informants’ own formulations and constructions of reality checked against those of other similarly situated informants or the observations of an informed observer [while quantitative research relies on statistical measurements].

In qualitative research, trustworthiness is demonstrated through the researcher’s reflexivity, the use of appropriate methodology, and the methods of data collection (Flyvbjerg BCCE; Fossey et al., BCCB). Lincoln and Guba (D]`E) propose a set of criteria that parallel those of the positivist paradigm (i.e. internal validity, external

validity, reliability, and objectivity), and that qualitative research should address in order to establish trustworthiness, which are: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

Credibility is considered one of the most important factors in establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research (Shenton, BCCH; Lincoln and Guba, D]`Pa). It is described as being an equivalent measurement of internal validity in quantitative research, and is concerned with the question of how congruent the findings are with reality or to what extent the research actually measures what it is supposed to (Fossey et al., BCCB; Lincoln and Guba, D]`E). After all, there can be a number of possible interpretations of a social phenomenon, and it is the credibility of the interpretation that a researcher arrives at that determines its acceptability by others (Bryman, BCDE). In order to establish credibility in the research findings, researchers need to take several steps that can increase the confidence in their research, such as prolonging engagement with data sources, and using triangulation, tactics to help ensure honesty in participants, respondent validation, peer scrutiny of the research project, and in-depth description of the phenomenon under study (Shenton, BCCH; Ambert et al., D]]P; Lincoln and Guba, D]]C).

Transferability is concerned with the extent to which findings have applicability in other contexts and settings (Lincoln and Guba, D]`P). Since the findings of qualitative studies are specific to the context in which they occur, many researchers argue that it is impossible to demonstrate such transferability. Yet a different view is presented by researchers such as Denscombe (BCDC) and Stake (BCCJ) who argue for the possibility of demonstrating transferability in qualitative research. They argue that in qualitative studies each case is an example of a larger group, therefore the idea of transferability should not be dismissed. Lincoln and Guba (D]`P) also indicate that qualitative research generates a 'thick description' of the phenomena under scrutiny, which enhances the possibility of the transferability of findings. Therefore, qualitative researchers need to provide an in-depth and rich description in their study so researchers in similar or different contexts are able to relate to their findings (Lincoln and Guba, D]`E, D]]C).

Dependability addresses the question of whether the findings are consistent and could be repeated. Shenton (BCCH) suggests that in practice demonstrating the creditability of a piece of research also involves showing its dependability. This is because the two measurements are closely tied. Nevertheless, Lincoln and Guba (D]`P) state that dependability can be achieved through the use of ‘overlapping methods’ such as interviews, focus groups, and observations. Shenton (BCCH) further suggests that including a detailed report of the research process within the study acts as a ‘prototype model’ that gives other researchers the opportunity to develop a thorough understanding of the methods used and their effectiveness, and to repeat the same work if necessary.

Confirmability is concerned with whether the research findings are truthful, in that they represent the experiences and ideas of the participants rather than the biases, interests and perspectives of the inquirer (Lincoln and Guba, D]`P). In order to ensure that the findings represent the views of the participants and not those of the researcher, two important techniques are often employed to establish the confirmability within qualitative research: the triangulation of different sources of data collection, and the reflexivity of the researchers (Shenton, BCCH; Huberman and Miles, D]]H).

Establishing the trustworthiness of the current study occurred by taking several measures. The first measure was the prolonged engagement with the data source. While in the field, a sufficient amount of time was spent on gaining an understanding of the phenomenon under study and to build a rapport with the participants. During that period, much of the time was spent in observing participants inside the classroom and beyond, and discussing the research in detail with different stakeholders in the field.

Second, as discussed before, triangulation plays a significant role in establishing trustworthiness and is achieved through a number of different procedures including

data triangulation, theoretical triangulation, researcher triangulation and methodological triangulation (Bryman, BCDE; Stake, BCCJ; Denzin, D]IC). In this

study two types of triangulations have been applied: data and methodological. The data triangulation was achieved by collecting information from a variety of participants: students from different academic levels and NES and NNES lecturers, as well as the programme’s administration staff. This meant that different viewpoints were fairly represented in the findings. In addition, methodological triangulation was established by using multiple methods of data collection including interviews, observation and documents. These methods were used to construct a reality from different perspectives which could be triangulated during the analysis process to maximise the credibility of the findings.

The third measure of establishing trustworthiness was through the way in which participants were recruited. As mentioned in section H.E, all participants were recruited on a voluntary basis during early observations. This strategy eliminated any possible bias from the part of the researcher in selecting the participants. In addition, Stake (BCCH, p. EE) indicates that in order to encourage participants to be honest when contributing data,

each person who is approached should be given opportunities to refuse to participate in the project so as to ensure that the data collection sessions involve only those who are genuinely willing to take part and prepared to offer data freely.

Throughout the interviews, it was made clear to all participants that they could refrain from answering any question they felt uncomfortable with, and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any point without giving any reasons.

Fourth, respondent validation is described as a process whereby the research gives participants the opportunity to check the findings (Bryman, BCDE). This measure was especially significant in this study since the students’ viewpoints were central in understanding their learning experiences. Respondent validation was carried out by asking interviewees to cross-check the transcripts and the translations to ensure these reflected their viewpoints. In addition, at the end of each interview, participants were informed that they could add, change or omit anything they had

said, even after the interview was completed. Although in both cases little feedback was given by students, some lecturers did add to some of their answers. The main aim of this measure was to enhance confidence in the findings.

The fifth measure of establishing trustworthiness was by peer scrutiny of the research project. From the early stages of this project and until its final stage, different academics such as supervisors and colleagues offered constructive feedback on the research process and content. The research was presented in seminars and conferences within Sussex University and beyond. These critical perspectives were fundamental in ensuring that the research process and outcomes were constantly under scrutiny.

Finally, throughout this project it was imperative to ensure that an in-depth description of the students’ learning experiences in the EFL programme at CU was given. For example, the introduction chapter provides a thorough discussion about the background and rational that guide this inquiry. The context chapter offers a detailed description of the research context. Chapters three and four discuss the literature and the methodology used in much detail. These levels of description enhance the trustworthiness of this study and the confidence in its findings.