V ALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Qualitative inquiry produces findings emanating from real-world settings where a phenomenon of interest naturally unfolds, and qualitative researchers seek illumination, understanding and extrapolation to similar situations (Patton, 2002;

Hoepfl 1997). This assertion entails that a qualitative researcher is involved and immersed in the research, which may lead to subjectivity and questionable credibility (Goalfshani, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Malterud (2001), Golafshani (2003), Rolfe (2006) and Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson and Spiers (2002) argue that qualitative research has a testing protocol to be followed to ensure credibility, transferability and trustworthiness.

Reliability and Validity are common to quantitative studies but are also of relevance to qualitative research as criterion for quality (Patton, 2002).

According to Winter (2000), reliability is the extent to which results are consistent over time and can be replicated. It is a concept used for testing or evaluation, which elicits information on the quality of research (Golafshani, 2003). Winter (2000) and Golafshani (2003) contend that validity determines whether the research measures what it intended to measure or how truthful the results are, and whether the means of measurement are accurate. Lincoln and Guba (1985) have provided other appropriate terms to elucidate validity as quality, rigour, and trustworthiness. The concept of quality in qualitative studies has the purpose of generating understanding of otherwise confusing and enigmatic situations (Eisner, 1991). Lincoln and Guba (1985) endorse that reliability can persuade a reader of a research inquiry to contend with the results thereof as worthy of attention. Patton (2002) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) purport that there is no validity without reliability, and reliability is a consequence of the validity in a study.

Testing for reliability, validity, rigour and trustworthiness could be done during the research process or at the end of the research (Morse et al., 2002; Merriam, 2009). Morse et al., (2002) argue that attending to rigour throughout the process, including post hoc reflection, will improve the quality of the research inquiry and its text. The following strategies were used for this research:

Table 4: Verification strategies for reliability and validity.

Adapted from Merriam (2009) and Morse et al., (2002)

Strategy Description

Triangulation (sample triangulation) Using multiple sources of data and data collection methods to confirm findings

More indulgence in data collection and analysis (saturation)

Adequate time spent collecting data and analysis until saturation is reached. Saturation was attained from the 16^th interview.

Reflexivity Self-reflection by the researcher regarding

assumptions and biases. Codes were defined to eliminate uncertainty of meaning.

Sampling efficiency (purposive sampling) Knowledgeable participants in varied samples to ensure saturation and allow for a greater range of application of findings. Purposive sampling was used to get knowledgeable participants who will supply corroborative evidence.

Methodical coherence (interview instrument) To ensure congruence between the research question and the components of the method.

The interview instrument was structured to address the research question.

Bias may arise when the researcher’s subjectivity is ignored. Malterud (2001) argues that establishing an agenda for assessment of subjectivity minimises the illusion of denying the human touch. He further attests that bias is undesirable and has to be dealt with, although it may not be completely eliminated (Malterud, 2001). The researcher should at all times be aware of subjectivity

during the research process and account for it or present this as the limitations and strengths of the study (Malterud, 2001). The researcher ensured that rigidity to the research process was followed through reliance on the data at hand, and nothing else.

3.8.1 External validity

This study is both qualitative and interpretive which entails that the researcher interprets information from participants to gain understanding and meaning.

Miles and Huberman (1994) argue that a researcher is involved and immersed into the research and comes with subjectivity and bias that can negatively impact the validity and reliability of the research. The researcher cannot be objective and may undermine validity through poor sampling and faulty research procedures (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011). The researcher counteracted subjectivity and bias through the use of triangulation. There was a variety of samples collected from both private and public sectors, and coaches and coachees were interviewed. There was a total of 18 participants that were interviewed; four teams made of four coaches and seven coachees, and another seven individual team coaches. They all had knowledge of the research topic and were able to provide relevant and appropriate data from different perspectives, affording a sound application of triangulation.

3.8.2 Internal validity

Christensen and Carlile (2009) contend that internal validity is the extent to which conclusions are unequivocally drawn from data and possible outcomes are ruled out. Internal validity was complied with by using multiple sources, triangulation of data from one team to another, and rigorous coding of data using Atlas.ti software from transcribed recorded interviews. There was indulgence from the researcher in connection with time taken in collecting data from the multiple sources and time spent analysing it. This ensured that there is rigour and thoroughness in data collection and analysis.

3.8.3 Reliability

Reliability is the extent to which results are consistent over time and replicable, and can persuade a reader to contend with results as worthy of attention (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Winter, 2000). The researcher has kept the research process and data collected and has published them in this report. There are memos and codes were defined to minimise misinterpretation. Researcher bias was curtailed by being constantly reminded that own preferences are not entertained, but data should be the focus of the research.