Truth-value

Truth-value seeks to check whether the findings of the study are a true reflection of the experiences of the research participants (Krefting 1991:215). This means that truth-value seeks to check the credibility of the findings. Credibility is the trustworthiness, plausibility, and good character of the researcher and his study, which impacts the believability of the research findings (Tracy 2013:248). Through credibility, the researcher becomes aware of a set of procedures to ensure that the standards of trustworthiness are met (Marshall & Rossman 2016:46). According to Birt, Scott, Cavers, Campbell and Walter (2016:1802), trustworthiness of results is the bedrock of good qualitative research. It is further suggested by Nieuwenhuis (2016:123) that credibility can be enhanced through the development of an early familiarity with the participants and participating organisations, but also through well-defined, purposive sampling, detailed data collection methods, and triangulation. In addition, Thorne (2016:234) postulates that qualitative studies ought to show representative credibility such that the theoretical claims they purport to make are consistent with the manner in which the phenomenon under study was sampled. Therefore, credibility reflects the sense of truth-value and that the findings are the true reflection of the participants’

experiences.

In this study, the researcher planned to use the following credibility strategy in order to achieve the truth-value of the findings: interview technique, triangulation, peer examination, authority of the researcher, and member checking.

- Interview technique

The researcher intended to prepare the participants before the process of data collection, as it would create a conducive space for them to share their life experiences voluntarily and freely. Apart from the preparation of participants for data collection, the researcher planned to establish a rapport and trust during his initial visits to the participants. Furthermore, the researcher intended to discuss ethical considerations with the participants as part of the preparation for data collection, and later seek their informed consent. The researcher also intended to discuss the ethical considerations with participants during the process of preparation for data collection. The methods of data collection involved the use

of the following skills: listening, probing, questioning and empathy, as initially planned by the researcher. Using these skills, the researcher intended to enable participants to freely share their experiences during the interview, as well as enabling an in-depth exploration of the issues under discussion. The interview techniques/skills are expansively explained in Chapter Three, sub-section 3.5.6.2.

- Triangulation

Triangulation is a process of using multiple methods or data sets to increase the validity of findings, on the assumption that findings are more credible if they are consistent with other findings (Green & Thorogood 2014:324). Similarly, Nieuwenhuis (2016:122) suggests that triangulation is the use of multiple lines of sight and it constitutes an important strategy in the synthesis of research findings.

With triangulation, the researcher is able to test a piece of data by comparing it with two or more other relevant pieces of data with the aim of validating a significant report, but it can also be used to analyse the reasons for differences (Williams 2015:119). Triangulation is considered one of the most important ways to enhance the trustworthiness of research findings (Nieuwenhuis 2016:375).

Without triangulation, the credibility of the research findings is questionable.

In this study, the researcher intended to carry out triangulation in order to identify the common themes that would enhance the trustworthiness of the study. For instance, the researcher planned to collect data on the nature of social work services to divorced persons and the needs of divorced persons regarding social work services from various sources, including from divorced persons and social workers. To ensure that triangulation was met, the researcher intended to collect data from social workers employed in different settings, including NGOs, government departments, the private sector, and in private practice. Moreover, the researcher planned to collect data from divorced men and women from different ethnic groups. The researcher also planned to use multiple methods of data collection, such as semi-structured, face-to-face interviews and the researcher’s observations of the participants.

- Peer examination

Peer examination is the review of a project by someone who is familiar with the research being explored (Creswell 2016:194). It is intended to prevent bias and aid conceptual development of the study (Morse 2015:2015). It is recommended that the researcher must listen to alternative points of view, but take final responsibility for the results, its implications and applications (Morse 2015:2015).

Likewise, Shenton (2004:67) suggests that opportunities for scrutiny of the project by colleagues, peers and academics should be welcomed. Therefore, peer examination assists the researcher with conceptualisation.

The researcher intended to use his promoter as a peer reviewer, since she is knowledgeable about the qualitative research method. The researcher also intended to give the transcripts to an independent coder in order for her to critique and assess the interpretation of the direct quotes and the research findings.

- Authority of the researcher

As a lecturer in the Department of Social Work at UNISA, one of the researcher’s key performance areas involves supervising and providing support to students registered for their Master’s degree in Social Work. The researcher also attended many workshops and training sessions on qualitative research. Additionally, the researcher was employed by the DSD in the Limpopo Province as a social worker for seven years and amongst his other duties, he dealt with clients experiencing difficulties with divorce. For that reason, the researcher is familiar with the topic related to divorce. This is also discussed in sub-section 3.8.2.1.

- Member checking

Member checking refers to giving the transcribed interview back to the participant to obtain additional information or to collect data (Morse 2015:2016). On the same note, Creswell (2016:192) postulates that member checking is when the researcher takes the participants’ themes or entire stories back to them and asks the participants whether their themes or stories are an accurate representation of what they said. Member checking is used to validate, verify or assess the trustworthiness of qualitative results (Birt et al 2016:1803). In addition, member checking is a means of enhancing rigor in qualitative research, proposing that

credibility is inherent in the accurate descriptions or interpretations of phenomena (Birt et al 2016:1803). With member checking, the researcher is afforded an opportunity to gather additional and often crucial information that was not shared by participants in the previous session for whatever reason.

Participants are also afforded an opportunity to validate the previously supplied information.

For this study, the researcher planned to do member checking during the transcription and translation of data, as he may identify some gaps in the transcribed interviews.

1.5.2.2 Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to other contexts and settings, or other groups (Krefting 1991:216). Therefore, applicability relates to transferability and generalisability. Transferability and generalisability in qualitative research refer to the extension of conceptual rather than empirical findings to other settings (Green & Thorogood 2014:324). More precisely, transferability is the ability of readers to assess what is likely to be relevant in other settings or contexts, and it relies on good descriptions of the particularities of the setting of the case and good theoretical analysis which allows credible inferences about what is general (Green &

Thorogood 2014:252). On the other hand, generalisability is about extending the research results, conclusions, or other accounts that are based on the study of particular individuals, settings, times, or institutions (Morse 2015:2013). In the same way, Green and Thorogood (2014:323) assert that generalisability is the extent to which the findings of a study can be extended to other settings, populations or topics.

With transferability and generalisability, the research findings can be applied to other contexts and settings, and in doing that, it relates to applicability.

The researcher planned to use purposive and snowball sampling methods to ensure applicability and these methods clearly outline how to include participants. The researcher also intended to use exploratory, descriptive and contextual designs in order get an in-depth and an extensive description of the nature of social work services to divorced persons and the needs of the divorced persons regarding social work services. In order to check the transferability and generalisability of the findings, the

researcher intended to provide a comprehensive description of the application of research methodology.

1.5.2.3 Consistency

With consistency, researchers are concerned about the kind of data collection consistent with the research questions and research goal, and the kinds of analysis and presentation of results that fit with the approach (Holloway & Todres 2003:347).

Thus, consistency means that similar findings are produced when replicated within the same contexts. In order to ensure the consistency of the research findings, the researcher intended to present the exact methodology which describes how the study was conducted. The researcher also planned to give data to an independent coder for analysis and interpretation. The researcher’s findings and the findings from the independent coder were intended to be compared in order to check the consistency regarding the themes, sub-themes, and categories. In addition, the researcher anticipated using the code-recode procedure, as outlined by Krefting (1991:221), to check consistency.

1.5.2.4 Neutrality

Neutrality refers to the degree to which the findings are a function solely of the participants and conditions of the research, and not of other biases, motivations, or perspectives (Krefting 1991:216). With neutrality, steps must be taken to help ensure that as far as possible, the findings are the result of the experiences and ideas of the participants, rather than the characteristics and preferences of the researcher (Shenton 2004:72). In order to meet this criterion, the researcher planned to focus on the neutrality of data rather than the neutrality of the researcher. The researcher also intended to use literature control to compare and confirm data collected from the study.

Furthermore, the researcher anticipated using credibility to establish the truth-value of the study through interview technique, triangulation, peer examination, and authority of the researcher, together with applicability of the study, in order to achieve neutrality of the study.