Validity of the Research

Kirk and Miller (1986) and Silverman (2001) point out that the issues of reliability and validity are important, because in them the objectivity and credibility of (social scientific) research is at stake. Joppe (2000) defines reliability as:

“…The extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable.

(p. 1)

The concept of validity is not a single, fixed or universal concept and according to Winter (2000)

“rather a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in the processes and intentions of particular research methodologies and projects” (p.1).

Some qualitative researchers have argued that the term validity is not applicable to qualitative research, but at the same time, there is a need for a way to qualify,

112

check or measure research findings. In light of this, Creswell & Miller (2000) suggest that the validity is affected by the researcher’s perception of validity and as a result, many researchers have developed their own concepts of validity and have generated terms, such as, quality, rigor and trustworthiness (Davies & Dodd, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stenbacka, 2001). Davies and Dodd (2002) argue that the way the notion rigor is applied in qualitative research should differ from those in quantitative research by

“accepting that there is a quantitative bias in the concept of rigor, we now move on to develop our reconception of rigor by exploring subjectivity, reflexivity, and the social interaction of interviewing” (p. 281).

According to Lincoln & Guba (1985) the aim of trustworthiness in a qualitative inquiry is to support the argument that the inquiry’s findings are ‘worth paying attention to’ (p290). This is quite different from the conventional experimental precedent of attempting to show validity, soundness, and significance. Reissman (1993) argued that

‘the historical truth of an individual’s accounts is not the primary issue…’trustworthiness’ not ‘truth’ is a key semantic difference’ (p65).

Mishler (1986) argues for validation rather than validity, a focus on the process of the research rather than results and outcomes. He offers a definition of validation as

‘…the social construction of a discourse through which the results of a study come to be viewed as sufficiently trustworthy for other investigators to rely on in their own work’ (p429).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) on the other hand argue that in any qualitative research project, four issues of trustworthiness demand attention as follows. Firstly, credibility, an evaluation of whether or not the research findings represent a

113

‘credible’ conceptual interpretation of the data drawn from the participants’ original data (p296). Secondly, transferability, the degree to which the findings of this investigation can apply or transfer beyond the bounds of the study. Thirdly, dependability, an assessment of the quality of the integrated processes of data collection, data analysis, and theory generation, and finally confirmability, the measure of how well the findings are supported by the data collected.

In my study, trustworthiness was enhanced through the following strategies. To address credibility firstly I tried to develop an early familiarity with the families before collecting the data. Lincoln and Guba (1985) are among many who recommend ‘prolonged engagement’ between the researcher and the participants to gain an adequate understanding of each other and to establish a relationship of trust between the parties. To help ensure honesty in informants when contributing data, each person who took part in the study was given opportunities to refuse to participate so as to ensure that the data collection sessions involved only those who were genuinely willing to take part and prepared to offer data freely. It was made clear to participants that they could withdraw from the study at any point.

Secondly, I employed four research methods in designing the research study with the intention to generate layers of data from each participant. This, while not meeting the technical definition of ‘triangulation’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), nonetheless provided a richer, more multilayered more credible data-set than one or two research methods would have generated. Thirdly, I sought the help of my two supervisors from frequent debriefing sessions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They guided me as I refined my procedure via the pilot study both after I collected the data and during the process of data analysis. They made observations and suggestions were given, and they posed as the critical friend, asking questions throughout the process. Their role was generally consistent with that defined in the

114

literature (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Also, peer scrutiny by colleagues, peers and academics were welcomed when I presented at conferences. Fourthly, I tried to provide ‘thick descriptions’ of the activities as a part of ‘member checks’ as has been recommended by Pitts (1994). Detailed description can be 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, which helps the reader of the final account to determine the extent to which the overall findings ring true. Finally, I examined previous research findings to assess the degree to which they are congruent with my study. Silverman (2000) considers that the ability of the researcher to relate his or her findings to an existing body of knowledge is a key criterion for evaluating works of qualitative research.

To address transferability in positivist work the concern often lies in demonstrating that the results of the work at hand can be applied to a wider population. Since the findings of my qualitative study are specific to a small number of families and teachers, it is impossible to demonstrate that the findings and conclusions are applicable to other situations and populations. Lincoln and Guba (1995) suggest that it is the responsibility of a researcher to ensure that sufficient contextual information about the fieldwork sites will be provided to enable the reader to make such a transfer. This will be addressed in greater detail in Chapter 5, Design of Study.

To address the issues of dependability, Lincoln and Guba (1995) stressed the importance of close ties between credibility and dependability arguing that, in practice, a demonstration of the former goes some distance in ensuring the latter.

This may be achieved through the use of ‘overlapping methods’ such as the video recordings, individual interviews and devoting careful attention to the research

115

design and its implementation. Finally, confirmability is associated with objectivity (Patton, 1990). However, Patton recognized the difficulty of ensuring real objectivity as the intrusion of the researcher’s biases is inevitable.

The difficulty with the researcher’s biases lies in the assumption that the area of research is outside the self of the researcher. Hence problems concerning subjectivity and ethnography according to Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) originate from the political conviction and practical interests of the ethnographer who might be tempted to distort the findings according to his/her ideological position (p21). Therefore, aiming to learn about the ‘other’ using ethnography according to Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) refers

‘primarily to a particular method or sets of methods that involves the ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in people's lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions, in fact, collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the research’ (p1).

Davies (1998) also rightfully points out that

‘We cannot research something with which we have no contact, from which we are completely isolated. All researchers are to some degree connected to, or part of the object of their research’ (p3).

On the other hand, Duranti (1997) argued that a researcher can never be ‘neutral’

and ethnographers are influenced by their moral, political and theoretical attitudes to their participants, the hunches they have, and their emotions. With the problems of neutrality and objectivity I believe a reflexive approach in ethnography can help me to recognize that

‘Rather than a method for the collection of data, ethnography is a process of creating and representing knowledge (about society, culture and

individuals) that is based on the ethnographer’s own experiences’ (Pink 2001, p22).

116

As my study was in the context of social research, reflexivity meant that the product of my research would be affected by my personal stance and the process I intended to apply to carry out the research.

However, I believe that although reflexivity does not claim to produce an objective or ‘truthful’ account of reality, it should aim to offer versions of ethnographers’

experiences of reality. This will mean that the researcher is as loyal as possible to the context, negotiations and intersubjectivities through which the knowledge is produced. To address this dichotomy of wanting to produce truthful accounts and to take on board the reality of the ethnographer’s experiences, Van Maanan (1988) identified three broad types of ethnographic writing and the conventions that govern them. Firstly, ‘realist tales’ where the author is absent from the text, scenes and events are described ‘as they are’ with quotations from participants introduced to show that the author knows whereof s/he writes. Secondly,

‘confessional tales’ are where the ethnographer is center-stage, telling the story of the research itself. Often the accounts take the form of modest and unassuming reports of the problems and struggles of the field worker, usually with a happy ending. Finally, ‘impressionist tales’ where the writing is literary or even poetic allowing the author to hyperbolize in order to make a point.

I approached my writing through ‘confessional tales’, where my first-hand knowledge of my culture helped to ‘inject’ authority to textual construction (Deck, 1990). This was partly achieved by taking on board one important feature of ethnography that Denzin (1989) put forward, which is that the researcher is not the conventional, objective outsider but that s/he infiltrates their life experiences into the writing.

117

Since the 1980s there has been a growing interest in using personal narrative, life history and autobiography to study individual lives among contemporary anthropologists. This trend has produced new terms such as ‘autoethnography’, referring to where the ethnographer is the ‘native’ (Reed-Danahay, 1997, p2-5),

‘reflexive ethnography’ referring to studies where the importance of the researcher’s personal experience and knowledge is emphasized, and finally

‘native ethnography’ where the native researcher becomes the bicultural insider.

As I was from the community within which I carried out my study I combined ‘auto’

and ‘reflexive’ ethnography in my approach.