Validity refers to the ability of a researcher (and users of research results) to extend findings of a particular study beyond the specific individuals and settings in which the study occurred (Mertens 1998). Validity, according to Kleven (2009), has four types; internal validity, external validity, statistical validity and construct validity. Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of
54
the total population under study (Joppe 2000). Neuman (2000, p. 170) emphasizes that qualitative researchers want to be consistent and not 'vacillating and erratic'. For reliability in this study, the researcher used different methods, which included interviews and document analysis in a consistent manner to examine how various relevant actors interpret UG’s vision of becoming a World Class University and their consequences of such interpretations.
This study followed Yin’s (2009) three principles of data collection in order to maintain validity and credibility. First, this study used multiple sources of evidence (documents, archival records, and interview transcripts). This principle allows for data triangulation, or developing “converging lines of inquiry” (p. 115) where conclusions are based upon several different sources of evidence. The second principle is to create a case study database, which is a mechanism to increase the reliability of the case study (Yin, 2009). A case study database includes case study notes (the researcher’s notes and observations), case study documents, tabular data (such as charts), and narratives (interview transcripts), which become the basis of the case study report (Yin, 2009). Finally, this study maintained a chain of evidence, which is the direct connection between the case study report, the case study database, the sources of evidence, and the case study questions (Yin, 2009). Four tests for validity are common to all social science methods, including case studies: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Yin, 2009).
4.9.1 Construct validity
In a detailed study of this nature, it is very important that the events which are studied are not based on the researcher’s own subjective intuition or guess, but rather should be based on or derived from analytical prepositions and literature reviews. It is against this background that the thesis used a detailed characterization of relevant actors’ interpretations of the World Class University template based on the framework of academic and relevance interpretation from relevant literatures. Moreover, a number of indicators for change process are identified according to Fumasoli’s (2011) approach to analyzing organizational strategies or consequences in higher education institutions. By doing the above, the researcher is of the view of increasing construct validity.
55
4.9.2 Internal validity
The underlying rationale of internal validity according to Kleven (2009) is related to the general question of the possibility of making inferences to unobservable events based on measurable operational events. It is in this regard that this study, for instance, is of the view that the consequences (organizational changes or effects) of interpretations of UG’s WCU vision which is an unobservable event, can be explained from observing of different indicators like governance structures which are written down in actual strategic documents might have changed as a consequence of interpretations of the WCU strategy (Yin, 2014). Hence, a careful and detailed explanation of analytical prepositions increases the confidence in the findings of the study. A variety of data sources are used in making it possible to triangulate the data and thereby, enhancing its validity. Triangulation was also used to enhance the trustworthiness of the analysis. Triangulation involves the use of multiple data points to determine themes from the data (Creswell, 2003). To obtain multiple data points, the study used interview sources and reviewed documents from multiple sources. A cross-referencing system was also used to relate findings emerging from interviews to documents. Through triangulation, the findings were reported with more confidence.
4.9.3 External Validity
The criteria of this type of validity question ‘to what extent can the findings of this case study be generalized to a larger population’. Also, there is a difference between analytic generalization and statistical generalization. It must be noted that case studies are not generalizable to populations, this is because, the case is a “sample” and it is impossible to measure the statistical significance of the findings for the whole population (Yin, 2014). Instead, analytic generalization is mostly suitable. By interpreting the outcomes in the context of the integrative approach of interdependency management of interpretations of UG’s vision of becoming a WCU and the consequences of such interpretations, the findings could be considered as forming a kind of working hypothesis which then can either be applied to reinterpreting the results of existing studies or defining new research focusing on other concrete situations (Yin, 2014). The analytic generalization thereby aims at expanding and generalizing concepts and theories (Yin, 2014).
56
4.9.4 Reliability
Reliability was established through documenting each step of the research process so that the study can be replicated in a different setting. Thus if later another researcher followed the same method or procedure, she/he should arrive at the same finding. Moreover, the aim of reliability is to minimize errors and biases in the study, which will be ensured by documenting the chains of thoughts that have led to certain decisions in the phase of the study design and data collection, and by staying in close consultation with an academic supervisor, interview guide, choice of process (Yin, 2014).