3 CHAPTER 3| RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.25 Validity and Reliability
McNeill and Chapman (2005) and Gillham (2005) are advocates of the test of reliability. The latter states that a test is considered reliable if upon retesting, it produces consistent results. Similarly, the former, defined reliability as having consistent and similar results after a research method is used on two separate occasions by two separate researchers. On the other hand, validity considers the truthfulness of the data collect and the interpretations of the results. Depending on the type of research, quantitative or qualitative, the method of testing validity will differ. For quantitative research, validity is tested based on measures of errors, statistics, sampling and instrumentation, while, qualitative test for validity involves aspects of honesty, richness of data, depth of research, triangulation and objectivity.
Generalizability on the other hand, deals with potential of extrapolation – that is, can the findings based on sample be extrapolated on a larger group? Since qualitative research aims
157 to obtain respondents’ responses, opinions, feelings and thoughts, within a particular contexts, and therefore the respondents’ subjective view, it may be difficult to prove generalizability. However, findings from qualitative research can be transferred and may be relevant depending on the richness and depth of the data (Finlay 2006).
As such Lincoln and Guba (1985) developed a research evaluation criteria for qualitative research that consists of credibility and transferability test, and dependability and conformability tests. Credibility looks at the extent to which the findings make sense, transferability looks at the context in which the research findings was obtained and whether it can be applied elsewhere, dependability looks at documentations of milestones that helped the researcher arrive at their conclusions and whether they can be retraced to achieve the same results, and lastly conformability looks at whether the research findings corresponds to findings of the same research but using a different method. Triangulation is a form of conformability test for qualitative research.
There are several strategies for achieving credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability in qualitative research. To mention a few; member checking, use of rich descriptions, presenting negative of discrepant information (Creswell, 2003), triangulation, in-depth methodology descriptions, examination of previous research to frame findings (Shenton, 2004), and peer debriefing (Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007).
Member Checking is a method of evaluating credibility of findings from qualitative
research by sending the final report to a subset of the research respondents so they can determine whether the findings are accurate and/or represent reality. This research made use of member checking to assess credibility of findings because it provides an opportunity for the respondents to see whether the findings actually represent the reality they live in. In addition, there were rich descriptions and documentations of the research findings so that
the reader can be drawn into the respondents’ world and may relate to some shared experiences. The use of rich descriptions adds to the credibility of a research finding. The research also describes the companies (found in Appendix 1) in great detail, and also describes each strategy in detail using the experiences of the respondents and relating it to literature. Presenting discriminant opposite points of views within a research added to the
158 different perspectives or angles. Presenting discriminant or negative information is part of critical research, which this research has done very well, from literature review to the conclusions.
Another aspect of validation is conformability. In-depth methodology descriptions tests conformability; looks at whether the research methodology is described in detail and
whether the documentations of the research process actually leads to the conclusions. The research methodology of this study has been described in great detail, from research philosophy, research methods, sampling, to data collection and analysis. Triangulation on
the other hand uses one of more methods to assess the validity of a research finding (Shenton, 2004). In this research both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and were found to conform to each other.
The other validity strategy adopted in this research is “examination of previous research to frame findings”. All of the findings of this research have been supported by literature and
have been shown to conform to previous research findings. Chapter 4 and 5 documents this. The only validation strategy, which was mentioned but not used, is Peer debriefing.
Peer debriefing is a “process of exposing one’s self to disinterested peer in a manner paralleling an analytic session and for the purpose of exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer’s mind” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This method was not used in this research finding knowledgeable people in the research area who could be willing to avail themselves for the exercise, was not possible.
3.26
Summary
The philosophical position of this research with regards to ontology, epistemology and axiology are: subjectivism, interpretivism and value-laden respectively. This is because social phenomena is created by social actors and their interactions with the phenomenon, depends on their subjective interpretations of the phenomena, which also could be influenced by subjective values and biases. Therefore, the research is inductive, qualitative, and exploratory in nature and finds its roots in grounded theory approach type of study because it begins at the empirical level and ends at the conceptual level (Emmel, 2013). Unlike the deductive approach which proceeds from conceptual level to the empirical level.
159 Using purposeful/purposive sampling and stratified sampling, unsuccessful turnaround companies were randomly selected from three websites to form sample 1, while live and still trading companies were also purposively selected and put under the test of Altman’s Z-Score to see which companies generated the right turnaround profile – decline, transition, and recovery; and this group formed sample 2. Purposeful sampling, was the suitable method of selecting unsuccessful and successful turnarounds companies because it makes a judgement about who or what to sample with respect to the purpose of the study, its context, and the specific audience for the research.
The technique adopted for data collection was interviews using open-ended questions. This technique allowed for a better understanding of the local context and the collection of more precise accurate and reliable data. Manually ‘content analysis’ was adopted for the purpose of data analysis to code the information in terms of ideas and themes that will support the development of the desired recovery framework for construction SMEs. Finally, the study will be seen to achieve validity through six of the validation strategies mentioned above: member checking, use of rich descriptions, presenting negative or discrepant information, triangulation, in-depth methodology descriptions, and examination of previous research to frame findings. Peer debriefing was not used because of the unavailability of peers that are knowledgeable in the field of study. However, because saturation was reached early, it is likely that the results of peer debriefing would be the same as the other validation strategies used in this thesis.