The Concept of the Validity of Qualitative - Research Paper Example

Introduction: Conducting a research involves a lot of work and requires good planning before executing the research. There are four main steps that need to be followed for a research. These include: a) Defining the research, b) Designing the research, c) Doing the research and d) Describing the research (Jobber, 2004). This paper aims at understanding the validity of qualitative researches. However before moving into describing how these are more effective and valid, it is essential to get a clear view of the various methods available for conducting a research. The reliability and validity of a research along with the accuracy and the interpretation of the results are an essential part of any successful research. Hence to be able to gain these reliable results triangulation has also been implemented. The benefits of triangulation have been mentioned further in the paper. Research Paradigm: A paradigm can have various meanings. It refers to “your basic beliefs” and your approach to the world which affects the way you define your research and how you collect and analyse data (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p. 47). The research approaches that can be used in studies comprise of a mixture of both the “phenomenological paradigm” which is also referred to as a “qualitative” approaches and the “positivistic paradigm” also known as the “quantitative” approach (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p. 47). “Phenomenological” is based on the word “phenomenon” which means a fact that happened or an event that was witnessed. With the phenomenological approach the focus is on “understanding the human behaviour from the participant’s own frame of reference” (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p. 53). As this approach is related to an event within a context of time and place, the aim is to investigate an event by carrying out your own research to “construct new theory to explain the phenomenon” (Collis & Hussey, 2003, pp. 56-57) or use existing theory. The aim and focus with this approach is “on the quality and depth of data” (Collis & Hussey, 2003, pp. 56-57). With the positivistic paradigm, the emphasis is on using measurement to find out the relationships between facts and causes of the phenomenon. This is “an essential element of the research process under this paradigm” (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p. 57). This approach is useful when there is a need to conduct statistical analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p. 56). A positivistic approach will be used and the researcher will be independent, will not be influenced by the subject of research, and will take “the role of an objective analyst” (Saunders & Lewis & Thornhill, 2000, p. 85). According to Denzin & Lincoln (cited in Silverman 2005), “qualitative investigators think they can get closer to the actor’s perspective through detailed interviewing and observation” (p. 10). With qualitative researchers, the emphasis is on the close relationship between the subject of research and the researcher where the value is in the social reality and the meaning of the social event or phenomenon. However, in comparison, quantitative researchers focus on the measurement and analysis of facts and causes. The qualitative approach relies on the quality and depth of data and does not focus on the “measured (if measured at all) in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 8). In addition, as Waters (2001) explains, the quantitative approach is based on “simplified representations of reality where real features are depicted by symbols” (p. 8). The research will use Triangulation is considered as a strategy to increase the validity of evaluation and findings (Mathison, 1988). Mathison supports this notion by citing (Denzin, 1978) who provided a detailed discussion of the importance of triangulation. Mathison (1988) suggests that triangulation provides evidence for the researcher to make sense of some social phenomenon, but it does not do this. The greater value of adapting triangulation strategy as Mathison (1988) argues resulted in three outcomes. These three outcomes are convergence, inconsistency, and contradiction. These outcomes shows the value of triangulation strategy which helps in providing evidence which the researcher can gather good explanation of the social phenomena from which they come up. Miles and Huberman’s (1984) comment on triangulation strategy is instructive, while Mathison argues the same (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Mathison (1988), states that one could be concerned about the quality of the data and the reliability of the data in case of a lack of developed productivity ability. There are various methods used in triangulation. Smith and Klein cited in Mathison (1988) have referred to this as a ‘different images of understanding’. There are four types of triangulation including: a) Data triangulation: refers to using different data sources and settings, b) Investigator triangulation: means to employ more than one investigator, c) Theory triangulation: engages a number of perspectives to interpret a set of data, and d) Methodological triangulation: involves using multiple methods. “Triangulation can overcome the potential bias and sterility of a single-method approach.” (Hussey & Hussey, 1997, p4). Hence triangulation will prove to be most effective here for the research and will also lead to provide the readers with a focused and trustworthy research as well. Triangulation in simple terms is a method of reinforcing the points that have been found in one method and ensuring all methods lead to similar answers thereby making the response insightful and reliable as well. Qualitative Research: Qualitative research takes into account an in-depth view of behaviour patterns of people. It aims at finding the reasons behind each aspect of behaviour or trend that is displayed. It becomes an answer to the how and what for the decision making unlike quantitative method being results of questions related to the what, when and where aspects (Jobber, 2004). Qualitative or phenomenological methods tend to produce rich intensive data relating to small numbers of people and moreover, they tend to provide more contextual data – which adds value to other data – while acknowledges the fundamental complexity of certain social phenomena (Walker, 1985). Hence, qualitative research need not have a very large sample; however a focused sample is necessary which helps the classification of data into patterns so as to form the basis for interpretation of results and for report making and organizing the results (Saunders, et al, 2000; Housel & Nelson, 2005). Validity in Qualitative Research: The concept of validity of qualitative research has been defined as, ‘.. a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in the processes and intentions of particular research methodologies and projects’ (Winter, 2000, p.1). Maxwell (1992) argues that validity is a goal rather than a product. This goal encounters some threats which are made by evidence, not methods. In order to exclude these threats, validity, as an important component of the research, must consist of a certain strategies. These strategies require the researcher to identify the specific threat in question and to develop ways to attempt to rule out that particular threat. The validity threats and the way they can be dealt with is a key issue in a qualitative research proposal. In dealing with validity threats Maxwell (1992) argues that qualitative researchers usually consider these threats as particular events or processes, rather than as generic variables. Maxwell (1992) discusses two broad types of threats to validity. These two types, according to him, are researcher bias and reactivity. The researcher bias is how certain values of the researcher influence the conduct and conclusion of the study. While the reactivity is to understand this influence and use it productively. Various researchers have over time develop their own concepts for validity and most of them adopt that the most appropriate terms for validity include, quality, rigor and trustworthiness. Over the years, Lincoln and Guba (1985) have argued that sustaining the trustworthiness for a research report is dependent on factors like issues, and quantitatively these are referred to as the validity and reliability. Over the years the focus of measuring the reliability and the validity of a research has been replaced by the idea of trustworthiness. This basically refers to establishing a confidence in the findings. Maxwell (1992) argues that methods and procedures do not assure validity to the research in general, but they are critical to the process of excluding validity threats which lead to increasing creditability of the conclusions. Conclusions: Aiming for validity in a research should remain the goal of the researchers and the threats that relate to the validity can be overcome by strategic planning and good design of the paper. As has been clearly understood by the above discussion, validity plays a very important role in any research and hence every researcher requires considering this, to ensure the paper is well received and is recognised to be trustworthy and reliable. Also another very essential aspect that needs to be considered is the triangulation which has a major impact on creating a high level of reliability for the research that is conducted and created a sense of trustworthiness as well. References Berry, R. (2004) The Research Project. 5th edn. New York: Routledge. Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2003) Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. 2nd edn. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Eisenhart, Margaret A. and Howe, Kenneth R. (1992) Validity in Educational Research, in Margaret, D. LeCompte, Wendy L. Millroy, Judith Preissle (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, San Diego, The Academic Press, pp.643-80 Freeman, M., de Marrais, K, Preissle, J., Roulston, K, & StPierre, E. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative Research: An Incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher 36(1), pp.25-32 Jobber, D., (2004), Principles and Practice of Marketing, 4th Edition, McGraw – Hill, Berkshire Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mathison, S. Why Triangulate?, (1988) Educational Researcher, 17(2), pp.13-17 Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research, Harvard Educational Review, 62 (3), Fall, pp.279-300. Maxwell, J.A., (1996). Qualitative Research Design. An Interactive Approach, Thousand Oaks, Sage, pp.86-98 Saunders, M. & Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2000) Research Methods for Business Students. 2nd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Sekaran, U. (2000) Research Methods for Business, A Skill-Building Approach. 3rd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Silverman, D. (2005) Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications. Waters, D. (2001) 3rd edn. Quantitative Methods for Business. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Read More