Chapter 4 Methodology
4.10 Validation
Validity in qualitative research was introduced in section 4.5. There are divergent views as well as several technical jargons among authors about validity in qualitative research (Creswell & Miller, 2000).There are equally different attempts to classify validity in qualitative research as types, frames or positions. It becomes even more confusing when the
135
“traditional validity” is compared with “ironic validity”. Nevertheless, the drive for emphasis on validity is largely towards instituting credibility for qualitative researches. This led some authors to become prescriptive about the guidelines for creating validity in qualitative research (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). One or a combination of triangulation, member checking, external audit, peer reviews, thick description are commonly used by researchers without necessarily any hint on why one approach may be adopted over the other. Creswell and Miller (2000) however, proposed that the choice of validity approach should be dictated by the paradigmatic propositions, as well as the viewpoint of the researcher.
Commonly, in qualitative research it is the views and perceptions of the people involved that validate the other in a research rather than the use of logical tools and extrapolations, such as external validity and content validity. Research findings, when considered asconstructs and interpretations of the researcher, may therefore be validated by obtaining the viewpoint of another party directly involved or not involved with the research. This stems from the philosophical assumption in qualitative research that reality is socially constructed.
Postpositivists, constructivists, and critical influence researcher are the three possible positions for a researcher on the continuum of philosophical paradigms according to Guba and Lincoln (1994). Any of these three positions may influence the approach to validity in qualitative research and was a dominant thought at one period or the other in history. The postpositivists approach to validity is to find qualitative equivalents of the validity instruments used in quantitative research (see section 4.5). The constructivists on the other hand were more flexible and used approaches and terminologies for validation that are unique to qualitative researches without making any reference to the quantitative technics. Contrarily, the critical researchers were indeed critical about the concept of validity in qualitative research and argue that the researcher’s value cannot be
136
dissociated from a research and advocated for self-disclosure and reflexivity, based on the believe that “What we see depends on our angle
of repose” (Richardson, 1994).
Built upon the 2-dimensional framework of researcher’s viewpoint and philosophical position the nine different forms of validity procedures commonly used by qualitative researchers are: Triangulation,
disconfirming evidence, researcher reflexivity, member checking, prolonged engagement in the field, collaboration, and the audit trail. Others are thick rich description, and peer debriefing (Creswell & Miller,
2000).
Triangulation is a procedure that seeks the convergence of different
sources of data (e.g. participants), methods (e.g. interview, document, focus group), of different researchers, or sources to compliment the findings of the other.
Disconfirming evidence is another validation procedure whereby the
researcher re-examines the data for contradictory themes in comparison to the initial themes. It is regarded as less robust in relation to the other procedures as it is practically difficult for the researcher to disengage from the sentiments of the original viewpoint.
Researcher reflexivity refers is a self-disclosure procedure where the
researcher acknowledges the values, beliefs and other sentiments that might have influenced the research. This may be incorporated into the overall story or as a separate section of the piece, e.g. as an epilogue.
Member checking is considered by some authors as the most important
procedure for establishing credibility in qualitative research. The procedure requires the researcher engaging the research participants to confirm the data and interpretations as truly representing their account. This procedure opens the interpretation and viewpoints beyond the researcher by incorporating the perspectives of the research participants.
137
Focus group discussions among the research participants to discuss the accuracy of the interpretation of the data are usually associated with this procedure.
Commonly practiced in ethnographic research is a prolonged engagement
in the field. This provides the researcher with the opportunity to validate
findings and themes generated by one method with another method. For instance, findings from interview may be verified by observations. Moreover, it increases trust between the researcher and the participants. Alternatively, collaboration with the research participants as co- researchers, and co-writers formally or semi-formally is another procedure for validating the credibility of a research. The research participants may be involved in all of data collection, analysis and interpretation, and sometimes the authorship of the results.
The audit trail involves persons external to the research that the
researcher presents the procedures used conducting the research and the analysis and interpretation for their independent view. The external party (auditor) reviews the research documentation in the light of the relevance of the findings to the data, logical inferences, categorisations, methods, and degree of bias.
Thick and rich description can be used a s a procedure to increase the
credibility of a qualitative inquiry whereby the context, research participants, and the themes are defined in details to enable the reader have the feelings of experiencing the activities of conducting the research. This is achieved through an account of how the research was conducted including every miniature details, which makes the readers assume the same viewpoint as the researcher, thus increasing the credibility.
Peer Debriefing means peer review of the entire research process and the
138
context or methods. Such reviews usually last for the entire period of conducting the research.
Creswell and Miller (2000) recommended employing multiple procedures in research while acknowledging the challenges of using some procedures like triangulation of methods, prolonged engagement in the field, and thick descriptions. Furthermore, the significance of member checking, records keeping, and collaboration with research participants was emphasized. The three philosophical positions were all considered important and its applicability depends on the nature of the research project and the paradigm stance of the researcher.
4.11 Conclusion and Link
In this study, while philosophically the researcher adopted the constructivist position ontologically and interpretivist epistemologically, an abductive logic was used in approach. On the other hand, the case study strategy was employed to design the research, which turned out to become a qualitative inquiry in response to the research objectives despite of the pragmatist stance of the researcher.
Semi-structured interviews were used as data collection techniques and the template analysis was employed in the analysis of the data. The data was interpreted to generate a conceptual model; and two workshops were organised for a focus group discussion to validate the findings and interpretations of the researcher. As will be discussed in chapter 7, the workshop participants comprised of the participants and other external members to the research. The workshops served as a focus group discussion to triangulate the interview findings and the conceptual model as a representation of the real life story. A presentation was made by the researcher followed by comments and discussions by the workshop participants. The discussion was moderated by a third party in manner
139
that was slightly different from the procedure for conducting focus group as recommended by Rabiee (2004).
Moreover, as some of the research participants were part of the workshop, it provided an opportunity for member checking. On the other hand, the role of the academic advisor to the researcher was described as a kind of peer debriefing. There was a combination of the elements of focus group, member checking, and peer debriefing in the validation of the findings and interpretation of this study. The findings from the data and discussions are presented in the following chapter.
140