Validity of semi-structured interviews

Hesse-Biber et al. (2011: 48) state that obtaining validity in qualitative analysis is not an end goal that the researcher can easily achieve. This supports Richards (2009: 149) who states that validity and reliability remain contested in qualitative research and that validity should rather be viewed as a process whereby the researcher earns the confidence of the reader that the researcher has “gotten it right.” Thus in qualitative research, trustworthiness is key.

Edge et al. (1998: 345) maintain that “Rather than accept or redefine the traditional terms of objectivity, reliability and validity, the ‘type of truth’ which is appropriate to the demand of qualitative enquiry is that it be a credible version of what happened both in description and interpretation.” Therefore, qualitative enquiry will not deliver generalisations that can be abstracted and applied; instead it aims to produce understandings of a particular context or situation that someone with knowledge of another context or situation may be able to make use of. It is thus a case of the researcher being dependable. Dependability is, therefore, not a

matter of replicability, according to Edge et al. (1998: 345), but rather a case of taking care that the inevitable changes in the research context and its participants are investigated, and the emerging design of the research itself is properly documented so that all decisions made and conclusions reached are justifiable.

Lincoln et al. (1985: 289-331) state that credibility, transferability, dependability and

confirmability are viable alternatives to the more traditional view of what constitutes valid and reliable research. Guba and Lincoln (1982) suggest that the credibility of a qualitative study is enhanced by means of triangulation through the drawing on of different data types, and the gathering of data in different ways, from different participants. Thus the very richness of the description and interpretation offered leads to transferability. Guba et al. (1982) also advocate careful documentation of the research study — an interrogation of the context —including records of reflection and decision-making according to which the steps of the research process could be reconstructed and thereby rendered confirmable and dependable. This supports Edge et al. (1998: 350) who maintain that the mechanical following of procedures cannot guarantee authenticity but it can be demonstrated by careful and honest documentation of procedure. Edge et al. (1998: 350) state that this authenticity “is not idiosyncratic to the researcher because it insists that an authentic individual statement is only possible once it has been

informed by the experience, perceptions and interpretations of others, to whom it grants space and voice” and so that “readers will recognise a genuinely inhabited statement and feel it worthwhile to ask of themselves, ‘What can I learn from this?’” Furthermore, in support of this view, Tracy (2010) sees credibility as a combination of trustworthiness, verisimilitude and plausibility.

Transferability, according to Tracy (2010: 845), can be achieved when readers feel as though the story of the research overlaps with their own situation and they intuitively transfer the findings of the research to their own actions and lives. Researchers can increase the

transferability of their research by gathering direct testimony, providing rich description and writing accessibly with clarity and comprehensibility. Furthermore, transferability also relates to “evocative storytelling” (Ellis, 1995: 145) which has the power to create in readers the idea that they have experienced the same thing as described in the research, albeit it in another arena. According to Hesse-Biber et al. (2011: 54), in an interview with David Karp49, Karp maintains that with a qualitative study, the researcher trades breadth for depth but “in the end, the test of validity, of whether you have been well-disciplined by the data, whether you really have

49

Professor David Karp has written a series of books and articles on mental illness. He is regarded as a methodological craftsperson artfully combining personal experience (Professor Karp has suffered from clinical depression for most of his adult life) with in-depth interviewing. He is currently a professor of Sociology at Boston College in Massachusetts, USA. [Source:

discovered some underlying social forms, is whether the real experts, those you’ve studied, when they read your work say, ‘You’ve captured it!...you found a way to convey my experience. It lets me understand my own life more deeply’.”

Tracy (2010: 840-844) suggests eight key markers of quality in qualitative research which are: A worthy topic that is relevant, timely, significant and interesting;

Rich rigour using sufficient, abundant and appropriate theoretical constructs, data and time in the field. In addition, the study should contain an appropriate sample and the data collection and analysis process should be meticulously described;

o The quality of rigour also provides the study with face validity which refers to whether a study appears, at face value, to be reasonable and appropriate. Tracy (2010) states that there are certain questions the reader needs answered such as whether there is enough data to support the claims, whether the data is

significant and interesting and whether the researcher used appropriate procedures in terms of field note style, interviewing practices and analysis procedures.

Sincerity, as it is vital that the study is characterised by the researcher’s self-awareness of the influence of subjective values, biases and inclinations on the research and is transparent about the methods used and challenges found;

Credibility, which is enhanced when the research contains thick, detailed descriptions and a focus on showing rather than telling. In addition, Tracy (2010) advises researchers to include triangulation or crystallisation of methods in their research studies;

o Triangulation assumes that if two or more sources of data, types of data collected or researchers come to the same conclusion, then the conclusion is more credible than it would be if it stemmed from a single source of data whereas crystallisation also involves gathering multiple types of data and using various methods or multiple researchers but it assumes the goal of doing so is not to discover a more valid singular truth but to open up a more complex, in- depth understanding of the issue.

Resonance, whereby the research influences, affects or moves the reader through aesthetic, evocative representation, naturalistic generalisations50 and transferable findings;

o Dadds (2008) refers to the ability of research to transform the emotional

disposition of the reader as empathic validity while Tracy (2010: 843) describes a good research study as akin to a good song or a fantastic meal, “a good

50

According to Tracy (2010), naturalistic generalisation refers to the ability to provide readers with a vicarious experience and an intuitive understanding of the scene.

(research) report is never boring…it surprises, delights, and tickles something within us.”

A significant contribution in which the research makes a significant impact conceptually or theoretically, practically, morally and methodologically;

An adherence to ethical standards; and

Meaningful coherence, in which the study achieves its stated goals, uses methods and procedures that fit those goals and meaningfully interconnects literature, research questions, findings and interpretations with each other.

Furthermore, Hesse-Biber et al. (2011: 48-52; 318) suggest Kvale’s (1996) three-part model for judging the validity of qualitative data. The model consists of:

Validity as craftsmanship which refers to the readers’ perception of the credibility and integrity of the researcher and the research. This involves how well the research has been checked and double-checked for errors and omissions, how thoroughly the researcher investigated the findings by means of looking for negative cases in the data, going back to participants to clarify points, and ensuring sampling procedures match the given research questions;

o In addition, Kvale (1996: 242) maintains that a further important aspect of validity as craftsmanship is the ability of the researcher to theorise from the qualitative data and to tell a convincing story.

Communicative validity refers to a dialogue among those considered as legitimate ‘knowers’, that is, those researchers who may make competing claims to knowledge building. Thus each interpretation of a given research finding is open for discussion and refutation by a wider community of researchers.

Pragmatic validity refers to the extent to which research findings impact on the research participants as well as changes that occur in the wider context within which the study was conducted. One pragmatic outcome of the research, for example, would be significant improvements in the working conditions of TESOL teachers or a form of participatory action research or collaborative enquiry focused on creating support networks for teachers. Action research thus aims to contribute to the practical concerns of people in an immediate and problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously. There is thus a shared goal of social activism and change.

o Kvale and Brinkmann (2009: 260), however, note that pragmatic validation raises the issue of power and truth in social research, that is, “who has the power to decide how the results of a research study will be applied to a real-life situation? Or the direction of proposed change? And where does the power lie to decide what kinds of truth seeking are to be pursued?”