Issues in Qualitative Research Design - Literature review Example

Qualitative research design Name Institution Course Date of submission Abstract The problem of the validity of research has been researched on by numerous researchers at no definite response as Whittemore (2011) affirms. The researchers have spent much in the phraseology of the qualitative research design. There has been an agreement among the methodologies present in qualitative research (Nieuwenhuis, 2007). The essay gives a highlight of the thesis and arguments by three articles that describe how valid the quantitative research design is (Patton, 2005). The judgments and suggestions from the readers and authors have also been an inclusive in the project. It is a conclusion that the science ideologies applied to give details on the creation identify the expressions. These expressions consider the observations, researching as well as the quality of the research carried out for the qualitative research designs (Mathison, 2008). Introduction The qualitative research designs after being researched on and studies by many across the globe, there is a divergence in the understanding of the research design. The protocol and activities involved keep changing as the technology changes (Kirk, 2006). The key themes from the debates on the validity. Qualitative research design research has been handled by many researchers over a wide range of period. The complexity and validity of qualitative research have been a challenge to handle by the researchers. According to Anfara (2002) the reason behind is the ever changing technology as well as evolution in the qualitative research design. Validity is said to be the limit to which something is trusted. The validity is determined by the data available to the organization or department. The qualitative analysis answer the question on what, why, how, when, the repercussions as well as the remedies adaptable (Whittemore, 2011). The conventional approach of validity In the educational research, the conventional concept of validity has been adopted from Lub (2015), the quasi-experiments, as well as the experimental design of research, have classified validity into two. The internal part and the external section of validity. On internal validity, we can define it as the sine qua non of the best designs in experiments. They involve crediting the inferences factored by the experiment as causatives impacting the validity under a predefined situation. In the process of meeting the requirements on internal validity, several additional factors residing in the study path have to be performed (Mathison, 2008). It is an example attached that the internal sector of the research is used to design the study. Further, the factors that have been the roots to the effects are also identified through conduction of interview to the party involved as well as their neighboring parties (Howard & Freeman, 2007). The neighboring parties act as the witness along sides being trusted to give the accurate information since they are not informed of the activities involved in their neighboring departments. They have been found loyal in data delivery in interviews. External validity that has also been defined by numerous authors and researchers involves generalization of the impacts that have been observed in the particular conditions of an experiment to another context as well as population. The requirements for the external validity of qualitative research design are obtained through the identification of the factors that are found to affect and limit the application of the study in other fields. These factors include the setting of the research, people involved as well as the variables involved in the investigation (Lub, 2015). Conventional approach and its application Several methodologies are for comparison in the experiment. They include the survey, experiment, unobtrusive method which include the various techniques adopted by the researchers who have been removed from the event of study physically, as well as life history (Nieuwenhuis, 2007). Additionally, the interview method, filming, and observation are among the methodologies of comparison. Besides, validity is a base in the comparison of the research methodologies mentioned above. Further, construct validity used in many types of research has matched the evidence empirically used to measure as well as specify the abstraction of the qualitative research designs (Fouché, 2005). Alternative choices on the conception of the convention A basic criterion of validity can be adopted as an alternative to the conceptual convention. The criterion can apply to the subject being researched on as well as the audience in the research (Howe & Eisenhart, 2006). Additionally, several authors have argued differently on the same issue on alternative choice for conventional ideology. Ethnography validity that can be said to the process to which the tale is given as well as provision and presentation of the evidence (Morse, 2012). Besides, the Narrative ingenuity that is based on the protocol followed in the presentation of accounts of ethnography is determined. In the presentation of data that is based on text, analytics, metrics as well as the evidence functioning are involved greatly. Therefore, there is a necessity in meeting the criterion of quality. It is an inclusion of references that show how the results and conclusion have been understood as well as applied in several target audiences. Therefore, validity is seen as a qualitative research design that ensures a clarity as well as an appropriate audience has been reached (Nieuwenhuis, 2007). Table of documentation. The problem with qualitative research design is that the researchers barely offer their readers with the explanations that are detailed to rely on. They do not explain how the data given in the research is related to the question that led to the adoption of qualitative research. The researchers have been found to lock out explanations on how the categories have been developed as well as the themes used in the research and their implications. The researchers have strongly confirmed that they have utilized the triangulation as well as the checking of members and making discussions on the developments made in the presented themes. In reality, the researchers work barely show the factuality and actuality of their claims (Creswell, 2007). The inner working and quality working have been promoted from the reader’s thus awkward data collection and poor documentation of field work is common in the qualitative research design. Additionally, the researchers who use an interview to collect data may assume some information from the interviewee (Bryman, 2006). Besides, some researchers could have less experience and knowledge on how to record the data collected from the field appropriately. It, therefore, results that qualitative data analysis on research being inappropriate to use for the research (Lewis, 2015). Data should be collected through designing an interview questions. The interview should have questions that address in details the research question. The questions should also open a chance for the interviewee to give additional information on the case study question. Thereafter, data analysis has to be conducted in qualitative research, just after the interview. A code mapping is used in data analysis as a way of managing data collected (Howe & Eisenhart, 2006). Standards of activities of practice through the qualitative research designs The researchers in the field of science support research on innovation, standardization, breaking of the boundary as well as systemization (Maxwell, 2006). There is a tension between conduction of qualitative analysis on practices about innovation and conventionalization. Under conventionalization has repercussions accompanied which include an absence of continuous flow of details, alienation of intellectuals, fragmentation as well as intellects fads (Maxwell, 2012). Over conventionalization has been found to be a causative of recipes that are described as mindless as well as bringing about limitations on the orthodoxies of scholars. The main leading source of the evidence that is to standard and of good quality is the systematic documentation of all procedures followed in the qualitative research design. In the qualitative inquiry, there are theories accompanied, which are found to be transparency in the use of language (Anfara, 2012). Documentation and interpretation of claims Claims are defined as the statement of the definitions that have been grounded in the postulate and the pieces of evidence. They give descriptions, interpretations, predictions, critiques, explanations as well as the deconstruction of the experiences (Maxwell, 2006). The claims join and connect the globe under which the data collected is bounded. The data found is under the interpreted perception of the data. In the modern qualitative research, there is better equipment that can be used to ease the use of several research designs. Presence of social media that can be used for online interviews as well as survey, along side’s collection of research data from the websites has been of importance. Therefore, the current research designs have been modernized thus giving details that are said to have validity in them (Creswell, 2012). Validity threats There are two threats to validity. They include reactivity and bias. The qualitative research has dealt with the threats thereby in validity as a specific process that can be as a result of invalid conclusions. It is a proposal that generic variables be controlled as a remedy to invalid conclusions. There is a large list of the validity threats that lead to the conclusion of the qualitative research (Mathison, 2008). Researcher being biased. There are two threats that are crucial in the validation of qualitative conclusion. The threats are under the selection of information that matches the researcher's theory that exists as well as the preconceptions involved. The second threat is brought by selection of information that is the key data for the researcher. Therefore, elimination of the theories and postulates by the researcher is not a remedy to the problem of researcher's bias. Also, standardization of the researcher cannot be done as a way of achieving a reliability. Therefore, qualitative research is an expectation and the values brought about to the study (Cho, 2006). Explanation of the possible biases of the researcher and the approach to take on the threat is the main activity in the qualitative research.it is, therefore, a conclusion that qualitative research cannot be a remedy to the in-differences thereby. Validity in qualitative research is a result of the integrity. Reactivity threat. In an individual study or a setting, reactivity is a threat identified in the process of influencing the researcher. Reactivity, therefore, arises from the qualitative study question. Research has approached reactivity with different aims (Bryman, 2006). Approaching it aiming at preventing the variability of the researcher from t being a negative causative to variable obtained as results will not solve reactivity. The goals in qualitative research should understand the influence as well as use it productively. It is in contrast to the older use which was aimed at the elimination of the influences (Mathison, 2008). Conclusion. Many systematic and scientific methods of qualitative research have been discussing in the essay. It an emphasis that it is not an advocating that there is a set of standards that ought to be taken as evidence by other teams. The interview has been used as the main methodology under the qualitative research that has led to the presence of validity, identification of threats involved in validity as well as their remedies. References Anfara Jr, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2012). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational researcher, 31(7), 28-38. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative research, 6(1), 97-113. Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited.Qualitative research, 6(3), 319-340. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2012). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Fouché, C. B., & Schurink, W. (2005). Qualitative research designs.Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions, 3, 267-273. Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (2006). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational researcher, 19(4), 2-9. Howard, K. E., & Freeman, R. (2007). Reliability and validity of a faces version of the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. International journal of paediatric dentistry, 17(4), 281-288. Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (2006). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage. Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), 473-475. Lub, V. (2015). Validity in qualitative evaluation: Linking purposes, paradigms, and perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,14(5), 1609406915621406. Mathison, S. (2008). Why triangulate?. Educational researcher, 17(2), 13-17. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications. Maxwell, D. L., & Satake, E. (2006). Research and statistical methods in communication sciences and disorders. Singular Publishing Group. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2012). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 1(2), 13-22. Neuman, L. W. (2012). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Nieuwenhuis, J. (2007). Qualitative research designs and data gathering techniques. First steps in research, 69-97. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2011). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537. Read More