According to Mason (2002:39,194), validity refers to the research findings. If they are valid, this means that you are, in actual fact, observing, identifying or measuring what you say you are. Validity of the method and interpretation of it must be demonstrated by going carefully back and creating the route by which you think you reached them – and there are no easy answers or shortcuts.
Struwig and Stead (2001:143) refer to validity in qualitative research as that which is trustworthy or credible. The different forms of validity in qualitative studies are:
Descriptive validity. This refers to whether the information provided by the researcher is actually accurate and comprehensive. The researcher in this study will work with a co-researcher to make sure that the data collected are valid in every sense, and that they are a true reflection of the participants, conveyed by comparing their field notes with one another.
Interpretive validity. This refers to whether the participants‟ meanings – or perspectives on something important that has taken place – are accurately recorded. Eliciting participants‟ comments of the researcher‟s findings is very important for the interpretative validity of the results. The researcher in this study will make sure that what is written down is exactly what was said and understood by the participant when the interviews were recorded. She will also contact the interviewees to establish whether she understood them correctly.
Theoretical validity. This refers to the agreement between the researcher and the participants on the theory used to refer to the described phenomenon.
According to Mason (2002:251), validity is always going to be a relative notion. What is valid in certain conditions may have to be altered when those conditions change. The researcher must accept that validity is relative to time, place and people.
Reliability involves the accuracy or consistency of your research methods and techniques. Mason (2002:39), Henn, Weinstein and Foard (2006:164) suggest that data from tape recordings could also be open to public inspection by others, providing opportunities for peers to scrutinise, validate or challenge the report findings and interpretations, while at the same time increasing data reliability.
According to Henn, Weinstein and Foard (2006:176), validity concerns the extent to which observations or in-depth interviews achieve a word close to the truth. It can be threatened in the following ways:
Reactivity: where people will alter what they say, if they know they are being researched.
Subjectivity: what the researcher sees as being significant and worthwhile.
Gang native prolong period: where a person become too emphatic with a group of people that is biased.
In this study, the researcher will at all times be objective during the interviews and appoint a co-researcher – so that the data obtained will give the true value of what was said and interpreted.
Struwig and Stead (2001:17) stated that qualitative research is more idiographic, in that relatively small samples are employed, without considering the wider
generalization of the findings; however, such findings might still be applicable to other similar contexts.
According to Gillham (2000:81), validity in a qualitative sense is a personal strategy whereby the researcher can manage to distinguish between fieldwork and theory.
By separating the data, discussion and argument in the study could help to make the research process transparent to the reader, and accurately represent the discipline of the research (Gillham, 2000:104). Throughout the research process, the researcher in this study will strive to be transparent as regard to the methods of data collection, the techniques employed and the analysing of the data.
Creswell (1998:200) suggested alternative terms to validity and reliability which are more applicable to qualitative research. These are credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Drew, Hartman and Hart (1996:172) described internal validity as “…the credibility of a phenomenon or research results”; and external validity as “…transferability, applicability, consistency, neutrality and confirmability”.
Truth-value: In qualitative research, the truth-value is captured in the human experiences – as they are lived and perceived by the people who give the information. A qualitative study can be considered credible when it represents such accurate descriptions or interpretations of human experience that people who also share that experience would immediately recognise the description (Poggenpoel, 1998:349).
Applicability: Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to other contexts or settings. The latter suggests that as long as the researcher presents sufficient descriptive data to allow comparison between two or more contexts, the problem of applicability has been adequately addressed. In this study, the problem of applicability is addressed by investigating the
phenomenon of learner support – in several provinces – thereby allowing for the comparison of the data with other contexts that are similar.
Neutrality: This refers to the objectivity of the researcher and to the proper distance between the researcher and the data in quantitative studies. In qualitative studies, researchers try to increase the value of their findings by rather decreasing the distance between the researcher and the subjects. In this regard, it is important to note that there is a shift of neutrality in qualitative research from the researcher to the data, so that the neutrality of the data is emphasised and not the neutrality of the researcher (Poggenpoel, 1998:350). In this study, the researcher will employ a co-researcher, so that the data can be considered reliable, without any interference from other researchers.
Transferability: If the researcher has inquired into the phenomenon with sensitivity, rigour and integrity, then the results of the phenomenon could be transferred to other similar situations. Struwig and Stead (2001:17) pointed out that qualitative research is more idiographic, because relatively small samples are employed, with few claims being made regarding the wider representativeness of the sample or generalizability of the findings, but that the findings might still be applicable to similar contexts. The latter will be applicable in this study.
In this study, the researcher made sure that enough time was spent with the participants to get the necessary in-depth information needed for this study.
1.7 TRIANGULATION
According to De Vos (2001:352), if more than one data-gathering method are used and compared with each other in a study, this can only strengthen the study‟s usefulness or transferability to other settings. This method is known as triangulation; it will enhance the transferability of a study‟s results to other suitable settings.
Triangulation as a method is supposed to support a finding, showing that independent measures agree with it and do not contradict it (Miles and Huberman, 1994:266).
Struwig and Stead (2001:18-19), and Miles and Huberman (1994:267), further stated that there are different forms of triangulation, namely: triangulation by data source (which can include people, times and places), by method (observation, interview), by researcher (investigators A and B) and by theory. In this study, the researcher applies different data sources, methods and researchers, to compare with and agree upon the empirical results and findings.
Duffy (1993:143) described and distinguished between three different kinds of triangulation that are relevant to this study, namely: data triangulation, investigator triangulation and methodological triangulation.
In this study, the researcher applies different data sources, methods and researchers. These are triangulated with each other, to compare and find agreement on the results and findings.