Validity and Trustworthiness

This section discusses the core conceptual framework for understanding trustworthiness in the conduct of qualitative inquiry. Rallis and Rossman (2009) defined “trustworthiness as a set of standards that demonstrate that a research study has been conducted competently and ethically” (p. 264). It presents focal criteria for a detailed assessment of research processes for ensuring rigour in this research. An explanation of crucial practices during carrying out this research is presented under each criterion below.

3.8.1 Validity of Research Instruments

Validity of research instruments refers to how accurately a method examines what it intended to examine (Cohen et al., 2018). Ary et al. (2013) and Flick (2014) highlighted the principles of validity in a qualitative inquiry. The simple principle was that they noted that the research processes are the main concern, rather than concentration on outcomes. Another principle is that the central source of data is from a natural setting. However, a setting is limited; its data have thick description, especially when the data represented the respondents’ voices, rather than those of the researchers. Charmaz (2014) suggested that “[w]hen you collect first-hand data, you see the settings, observe interaction, witness research participants’ non-verbal behaviour, and hear their voices, as well as their accounts” (p. 111).

Although the term ‘validity’ is usually associated with conventional quantitative research, some qualitative researchers utilise it to depict the legitimacy of their research instruments (Casanave, 2015). The validity of a research instrument proves that it is, as a tool, appropriate and accurate for use (Golafshani, 2003). Phakiti (2015) identifies how precisely the instrument yields data about the perspective under scrutiny. He suggests that an appraisal of the validity of a research instrument should consider the theory underlying the performances to be investigated. To evaluate such validity of qualitative inquiry, the researcher needs to have lenses which establish the researcher’s own standpoints and rationales (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

Where appropriate, using such lenses to gain validity, Maxwell (2013) claimed that he uses “validity in a fairly straightforward, commonsense way to refer to the correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account” (p. 122). In this case, the validity is affected by the paradigm assumption of the researcher, as well as their lenses (Creswell & Miller, 2000). I believed that reality is subjective and multiple as seen by participants in my research. I understood that my research is context bound. The lens through which I view the world is that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds. Furthermore, validity should be articulated in terms of “attentiveness, empathy, carefulness, sensitivity, respect, reflection, conscientiousness, engagement, awareness, and openness” (Davies & Dodd, 2002, p. 288).

Here were the ways I obtained peer review of my data collection methods/procedures. My critical friend, who studied a similar discipline topic, ‘lecturer cognition,’ provided me with her thought-provoking questions about and commentaries on research procedures. My PhD supervisors thoroughly evaluated all research instruments as well as offering critical comments on certain points for further development. After this, while the proposal defence committee provided instructive feedback regarding research instruments, ethical consideration committees approved all research instruments prior to entering the field.

I presented my research project orally in two international arenas. I presented research trends and my research frameworks entitled “The Past, Present and Future of English as a Medium of Instruction in Asian Higher Education” at The Hong

Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong (Sameephet, 2016), and presented another paper entitled “Multi-Methods to Research: What Lecturers Think and Do about English-Medium Instruction Policy” at SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore (Sameephet, 2017). Peer-reviewed abstracts are in Appendices 19-20.

3.8.2 Credibility

The credibility refers to the extent to which the results of qualitative research are believable in terms of the accuracy of the findings can promote the credibility (Cohen et al., 2018). Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued that ensuring credibility is one of critical factors in forming trustworthiness. Prior to the first gathering of data, many scholars recommend prolonged engagement between the researcher and the participants to stimulate sufficient understanding of the culture of the institutions and to promote a close rapport between them (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lub, 2015). Also, the study needs to be longitudinal to adequately represent the subject under discovery (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992), showing that the researcher has spent enough time “learning about, learning from, and learning with, the participants” (Rallis & Rossman, 2009, p. 265). When being present in the fieldwork, the researcher is able to enjoy the data of the phenomenon (Rallis & Rossman, 2009). As I was an insider researcher, I understood my institutional culture very well so that I appreciated how to behave in certain situations. I spent six months in the field. During that time, I learnt about what they believed, and I learnt from their practices.

The use of different research methods with the participants enables construction of a rich picture of the attitudes, behaviour or needs under scrutiny (Lub, 2015; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). By doing so, it diminishes any opportunity for biases, allowing the researcher to gain more confidence in interpretations (Fielding, 2012; Maxwell, 1992). This is because “the more the categories and conclusions are confirmed by different data sources, the more valid the results” (Lub, 2015, p. 4). My research had two types of triangulation: method triangulation and data source triangulation. These types of triangulation were categorised by Denzin (1978) and Patton (1999). I triangulated the data from multi-research instruments (i.e.,

interviews, observations, recalls, focus group, documents, and journal) and multi- data sources (i.e., lecturers, classrooms, and myself) with primarily the participants to capture different angles. By doing so, I was able to minimise bias when interpreting the findings.

An academic community may broaden the researcher’s thoughts regarding data gathering, analysing, and interpretation (Rossman & Rallis, 2011; Lub, 2015). For example, peer review should be considered since the researcher should get constructive feedback at any conferences during the research project (Rallis & Rossman, 2009; Shenton, 2004). This is a scheme of external evaluation of the interpretivist research process in which the new viewpoints and difficult questions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) from people in the community can challenge the researcher’s assumptions when he/she could not see critical viewpoints.

The researcher’s reflective research journal aims to record the intellectual journey which includes critical research activities, events, and movements throughout the data collection session, precisely and chronologically (Lub, 2015; Shenton, 2004). The researcher’s background, qualifications and experience regarding the current research is of interest during data collection and analysis, and is particularly significant in qualitative inquiry since it is another way to build trustworthiness (Rossman & Rallis, 2011; Shenton, 2004). I maintained my reflective research journal at every stage of data collection. Although I was new to PhD research, I had experience in undertaking interpretivist research with a team under a project of the Thailand Research Fund, prior to starting the PhD, from 2014 to 2015.

For the purposes of reducing the risk of misinterpretation by the researchers, the participants have the chance to evaluate the credibility of the researchers’ account (Lub, 2015; Stake, 1995). This technique is referred to as member checks in which participants check the accuracy of, agree or argue with, elicit further or extend, the gathered data in which they have participated (Rossman & Rallis, 2011). They can also verify theories and interpretations derived from their data (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Pitts, 1994). Detailed description aims to construct probability; it is “an important provision for promoting credibility as it helps to convey the actual situations that have been investigated and, to an extent, the contexts that surround them” (Shenton, 2004, p. 69). I sent summaries in Thai of the semi-structured interviews, stimulated recall interviews, and focus group

discussions back to the participants, to check accuracy. Regarding their feedback, some participants requested me to change word choices and adjust registers in the summaries, and all of them confirmed the accuracy of the summaries.

3.8.3 Transferability

The term ‘transferability’ is “concerned with the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 253). In qualitative inquiry, the findings are precise to a small scale of specific settings and participants. Qualitative inquiry “is assumed to be in flux, multifaceted, and highly contextual because information gathered is a function of who gives it and how skilled the researcher is at getting it” (Merriam, 1988, p. 171). Hence, it is inconceivable to determine that such findings can be directly generalised to other circumstances. However, it is possible for some interpretivist researchers to believe their situations and settings are comparable to other contexts, and the readers may be able to transfer the findings of an existing case study to their own context (Bassey, 1981; Firestone, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). And can be beneficial to other contexts when detailed description is offered through such research, so that the readers can select what they can adapt in their settings (Rallis & Rossman, 2009). Thus, “the results of a qualitative study must be understood within the context of the particular characteristics of the organisation or organisations and, perhaps, geographical area in which the fieldwork was carried out” (Shenton, 2004, p. 70).

3.8.4 Confirmability

Patton (1990) stated that, in qualitative inquiry, findings are derived from participants’ experiences rather than the researchers’ preferences. Shenton (2004) emphasised that “critical to this process is the ‘audit trail’, which allows any observer to trace the course of the research, step-by-step, via the decisions made and procedures described” (p. 72). Triangulation decreases the possibility of researcher bias. Also, the researcher should report beliefs underpinning decisions made, and methods adopted, within the research report. Although I used personal

interpretation of the events to make sense of findings, the key findings are derived from the participants’ perspectives and experiences. I utilised multi-research instruments to triangulate and reduce the effect of my own bias.