Validity and Reliability

Marshall and Rassman (1995) cited in De Vos, Strydom, Fouche and Delport (2005:345) observe that all research must respond to cannons that stand as criteria against which the trustworthiness of the project can be evaluated. This calls for

150

validity and reliability aspects in research. A much-cited definition of ‗validity‘ is that of Hammersley (1987:69): ‗‘An account is valid or true if it represents accurately those features of the phenomena, that it is intended to describe, explain or theorise.‘‘ Campbell and Fisk as cited in Hammersley (1987:67), also define validity as an agreement between two efforts to measure the same thing with different methods to the extent that the differences in scores yielded, reflected actual differences. Validity is therefore concerned with accuracy.

The researcher therefore ensured that the designed research instruments measured what they were intended to measure. The measuring instruments were pilot tested before being used in the main study as discussed in chapter 4, paragraph 4.2... The instruments used also contained a checklist that contained relevant details of what was intended to be observed, asked and analysed on the documents .(See paragraph 4.6). This ensured validity of the instruments used. To further ensure internal validity, the collection of data through interviews, informal conversations, household observations and the analysis of documents was ―sufficient triangulation‖ of data to cater for internal validity in view of the fact that data was collected through multiple sources. The use of multiple sources is to test the soundness of the case study findings by drawing on collaborative evidence (Gall et al, 2005:320). In support of this view, Patton 2002 cited in De Vos et al (2009:314), went further to state that by using a combination of procedures such as document study, observation and interviewing, the researcher can much more easily validate and cross-check findings. Patton goes on to state that each data source has its strengths and weaknesses, and by using triangulation the strength of one procedure can compensate for the weaknesses of the other approach. The use of triangulation reduces the possibilities for errors that may result from using one technique and to increase the strength of findings in the study (Setati, 2011:63). The researcher thought that a combination of research methods increases the validity of findings as the strength of one method compensates for the weaknesses of another method.

Thus to increase the validity of the study findings, the researcher used multiple methods of data collection which includes observation, semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis as already discussed earlier on. The advantage of using all three research methods in this study was that they could provide an overall picture of the behavioural challenges of in-school orphaned children. Detailed

151

schooling life stories of individual orphaned children and their living arrangements might emerge (Shang 2008:205 cited in Setati, 2011: 89). Thus the multiple methods helped the researcher to cross-check the trust worthiness of the findings gathered through the different sources of information employed in the study (Sidhu ,1997:263). 4.6.2 Reliability

On the other hand, reliability is defined by Campbell and Fisk (as cited in Hammersley 1987:69) as an agreement between two efforts to measure the same thing with the same methods to the extent that the average differences between two measures obtained is small. Put simply, reliability is the ability to measure consistently. Although validity and reliability of data is associated with quantitative research, it is also central in qualitative research. Cresswell (2009:190) states that qualitative validity means that the researcher checks for accuracy of the findings by employing certain procedures. On the other hand, qualitative reliability indicates that the researcher‘s approach is consistent across different researchers and different projects (Hammersley, 1987:69). In other words, reliability is a matter of whether a particular technique, applied repeatedly to the same object yields the same results each time (Babbie 2007:443).

To ensure reliability of the study findings, the researcher employed the following reliability procedures. Firstly, the researcher made an effort to control item reliability by asking the same question in different ways and compared the answers. Secondly, the researcher checked transcripts from the interview data to make sure that they did not contain obvious mistakes made during transcription. Thirdly, the researcher used member checking which is described by Lincoln and Guba (1985:314) as, ―the most crucial technique for establishing credibility‖. In this study, this implied taking the final report or specific descriptions or themes back to participants, that is to the orphaned learners, LO teachers, social workers and principals of schools and determining whether these participants felt that the referred items were accurate.

Gall et al (2005:323) concurs and states that researchers can check their reconstruction of individual‘s epic perspective by member checking, which is the process of having individuals review statements in the researcher‘s report for accuracy, bias and completeness. It is possible too, that the opportunity to read the

152

report will cause participants to recall new facts or to have new perceptions of their situations. Thus, the process of member checking also ensured internal validity of the study since research participants could reject or confirm their statements thereby establishing credibility as well, given that, in some cases it revealed factual errors that were easily corrected enabling the researcher to rewrite the report accordingly (Cresswell, 2009:78).

With these practices put in place, at least validity and reliability of qualitative data was taken care of in this study.