Week 8

  

Typically, when speaking of validity, qualitative researchers are referring to research that is credible and trustworthy, i.e., the extent to which one can have confidence in the study’s findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Generalizability, a marker of reliability, is typically not a main purpose of qualitative research because the researcher rarely selects a random sample with a goal to generalize to a population or to other settings and groups. Rather, a qualitative researcher’s goal is often to understand a unique event or a purposively selected group of individuals. Therefore, when speaking of reliability, qualitative researchers are typically referring to research that is consistent or dependable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), i.e., the extent to which the findings of the study are consistent with the data that was collected.

References

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

For this Discussion, you will explain criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and consider the connection of such criteria to philosophical orientations. You will also consider the ethical implications of designing qualitative research.

With these thoughts in mind:

Write an explanation of two criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research designs. Next, explain how these criteria are tied to epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying philosophical orientations and the standards of your discipline (Healthcare Science). Then, identify a potential ethical issue in qualitative research and explain how it might influence design decisions. Finally, explain what it means for a research topic to be amenable to scientific study using a qualitative approach.

Explain in 1-2 pages. Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.

ResearchTheory, Design, and Methods Walden University

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 3

Trustworthiness

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

Trustworthiness is

1. The extent to which one can have confidence in the study’s findings

2. Parallel of reliability, validity, and objectivity in traditional “quantitative”

research

Trustworthiness Criteria

Credibility

Findings and interpretations are plausible to the “researched”
(the participants)

Do findings accurately reflect reality as seen by participants?

Transferability

Applicability of findings based on comparability of contexts

Are conditions similar enough to make findings applicable?

Dependability

Account for factors of instability and change within the natural
context

Document naturally occurring phenomena (stability and
change)

Confirmability

Capacity to authenticate the internal coherence of data,
findings, interpretations, and recommendations

Document “researcher as instrument” and potential sources of
bias

Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 3

Insuring Trustworthiness

Action Description Insures
Prolonged
engagement

Investing sufficient time to learn the culture,
build trust with stakeholders, understand the
scope of target phenomena, and test for
misinformation/misinterpretation due to
distortion by the researcher or informant

Credibility
(internal
validity)

Persistent
observation

Continuing data collection process to permit
identification and assessment of salient
factors, and investigation in sufficient detail to
separate relevant (typical) from irrelevant
(atypical)

Credibility
(internal
validity)

Triangulation

Data collection and analysis interpretation
based on multiple sources, methods,
investigators, and theories

Credibility
(internal
validity)

Peer
debriefing

Engage in analytic discussions with neutral
peer (e.g., colleague not involved in the
project)

Credibility
(internal
validity)

Member
checks

Test veracity of the data, analytic categories
(e.g., codes), interpretations, and conclusions
with stakeholders to ensure accurate
representation of emic perspectives

Credibility
(internal
validity)

Thick
description

Describe procedures, context, and participants
in sufficient detail to permit judgment by others
of the similarity to potential application sites;
specify minimum elements necessary to
“recreate” findings

Transferability
(external
validity)

Audit trail

Records that include raw data; documentation
of process and products of data reduction,
analysis, and synthesis; methodological
process notes; reflexive notes; and instrument
development/piloting techniques

Dependability
Confirmability
(reliability and
objectivity)

Negative
case analysis

Investigate “disconfirming” instance or outlier;
continue investigation until all known cases are
accounted for so that data reflects range of
variation (vs. normative portrayal)

Credibility
(internal
validity)

Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 3

Action Description Insures
Reflexive
journal

Researcher’s personal notes; documentation
of researcher’s thinking throughout the
research process

Credibility
(internal
validity)
Transferability
(external
validity)
Dependability
Confirmability
(reliability and
objectivity)

Referential
adequacy

Archiving of a portion of the raw data for
subsequent analysis and interpretation, for
verification of initial findings and conclusions

Credibility
(internal
validity)

References

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is
Trustworthiness Criteria
Insuring Trustworthiness
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.