Validity and Reliability

Reliability and validity is of central concern to research studies. These are necessary so that readers have confidence in findings and believe that the research is authentic (Merriam, 2009). The relationship between validity and reliability is expressed by Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 292) who suggest that “reliability is not prized for its own sake but as a precondition for

91

validity”. This suggests that validity and reliability are not two separate entities that co-exist. Rather, without any reliability, there simply cannot be any validity. Generally, the core of semi-structured interviews used was identical and so provided a consistent format for interviewing participants. The additional questions that were used to probe further elaboration from participants were the only variable that differentiated the type of interview responses from one another, without deviating from the task. This must be accounted for when considering the reliability of the research design, as ‘tailoring’ is not causal to a significant effect in qualitative research.

According to Guba and Lincoln (1981), all credible research must have characteristics of 'truth’, ‘value', 'applicability', 'consistency' and 'neutrality'. The divergence in research approaches comes with their own paradigm-specific conditions to measure rigour. This is where quantitative methods require objective criteria to confirm validity, whilst qualitative methods require criterion that necessitates human intuition such as deciding what is fitting and dependable (Guba & Lincoln, 1981).

In quantitative methods, the variables are compared against each other (i.e. the scales on a questionnaire) and the consistencies of the measures are quantifiable in terms of appraising whether the individual scales and the questionnaires as a whole function as expected (Bernard, 2000). Conversely, qualitative methods are not compatible with the quantitative method of measuring consistency, for qualitative approaches produce subjective data. Instead, qualitative reliability and validity audits are carried out through researcher judgement for the duration of the analysis, as specified by Creswell and Plano-Clark (2011). They further state that the process of qualitative research should be transparent so an external reviewer can see the steps taken to ensure transparency and validity (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011, p. 211). In summary, it is imperative that the researcher uses sound judgement, as this will ultimately have a bearing on the validity of qualitative analyses. For example, when looking at viewpoints of the

92

participants from within the transcripts, it is important to recognise what individuals are trying to express and to be able to categorise the extracts under a relevant theme. Not only do the extracts need to be labelled, but they also need to be labelled in a consistent manner, so that the thematic codebook is comprised of dependable information.

People tend to have their own personal opinions and ethical views; for this reason there will always be differences in moral viewpoints. In this study, morality may play a subliminal role in the way participants responded. For example, personal views can conflict with the individual’s profession and their responses could be formulated based on personal values, or professional values may have overridden their concrete personal views and have been deemed more socially acceptable for their role. The implication is that this qualitative inquiry delves into the minds of the participants and searches for their professional experiences that are difficult to separate from their personal opinions. This is due to the fact that professionals are ultimately individuals that have unique experiences, though they may share clients with other professionals. That is, no two participants’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences would be the same. Of concern in qualitative studies, is that the researcher’s interpretation would be different to the meaning expressed by the participants, whom all have varying opinions. However, the researcher addressed this in this study by using a consistent coding process to ensure and maximise reliability. The researcher also accounted for this by offering a copy of the interview transcript to the respective participant to check with them whether it was a fair and reflective account of their views.

The researcher and the participant each have an identity within the interview phase: the researcher assumes the role of the interviewer, while the participant naturally becomes the interviewee. An interaction is created and sustained for the duration of the interview, where thoughts and opinions are verbalised. However, points of view can be expressed but there may be a variance in epistemology (e.g. that the researcher cannot have a true understanding of the

93

participant’s thoughts), with Houtkoop-Steenstra (2000) suggesting that answers in interviews are only a product of the interview situation, as opposed to the interviewee’s real opinion. Nevertheless, it is possible for people to be able to converge and understand each other’s points of view enough to conceive and share the same ideas. In the scenario of the interview process, the shared understanding can relate to the interviewee’s comprehension of the task at hand, or the interviewer’s conceptualisation of the interviewee’s experiential accounts. Together, the interviewer and the interviewee can reach an ideal point, where the interview follows accordingly, as a result of the shared understanding of what is expected from one another. There should also be awareness that both the interviewer and the interviewee each have communicative roles to play (i.e. the interviewer doing the questioning, guidance and the use of gestures and verbal nods; and the interviewee who expresses him/herself, knowing that the content he/she provide is the core of the interview and determines which direction the discussion may take). In establishing a relationship between the interviewer and interviewee, it was also important to address the issues of the interviewer having a multiple identity. McNair, Taft and Hegarty (2008) point out that, to the interviewee, the interviewer could be perceived as being both an insider and an outsider, by virtue of his status as both a researcher and a psychologist. It may have been the case that the interviewee did not want to express certain views to a psychologist, in which case the professional identity of the researcher would interfere with gathering useful interview data. Therefore, to control for this, it was important to make clear to the participants that the interviewer was acting solely in a research capacity, their views would be used entirely for the research and in this sense the professional identity of the researcher would be put to one side.

It is also important to mention that with the inductive approach, the analysis is directed by the unique themes and categories identified by the researcher, and not a pre-existing coding frame set out by another researcher. For this reason, external influence on coding is kept to a

94

minimum and the researcher was careful to ensure that any academic and personal interests did not conflict with theme generation as much as possible, as personal experiences may limit what one sees in the data.

Cognitive and Communicative Ability

Various abilities of the participants were considered as they can contribute to disparities that may emerge. Features such as verbal ability, cognition and understanding of the task can influence participants’ decision-making and responses during the interview process. However, all participants in this study were functioning professionals in high demand jobs, so it was considered that they would have adequate levels of cognitive and communicative ability for the purpose of this research.

Social Desirability

Another factor accounted for which could affect the reliability and validity of the study was social desirability. Social desirability bias can help to explain how participants may respond with the intention of pleasing the interviewer through comments that are socially accepted or admired and are therefore biased (Guest, Bunce, Johnson, Akumatey, & Adeokun, 2005; Phillips & Clancy, 1972; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). It could be that as the participant is specifically being interviewed about YPLDs in relation to his/her profession, therefore he/she may have a tendency to provide positive and constructive answers that demonstrate a positive outlook. This proves to be problematic for analysing the research data, having gained a biased sample based on an individual’s perception of ‘ideal’ responses.

For the purpose of the current research project, in an attempt to minimise the possibility of socially desirable answers, the research ensured that the participants understood that the data

95

is to be kept strictly confidential and therefore not disclosed to those that may judge them for their honest responses (Singer, Hippler, & Schwarz, 1992). Braun and Clarke (2013) also point out that it is important when designing the questions, for an interviewer to consider whether specific questions are likely to only elicit socially desirable responses. This was considered both when designing the questions for the present research and also during the pilot phase. However, there were inevitably differences in enthusiasm between the participants that may well have caused answers to be more desirable. Ultimately, the researcher needed to make his own interpretation on what data was classed as authentic and resolute, using various steps to confirm reliability and validity of the study.

96