Embedded Files
what is validity?
what is validity?
Creswell and Miller (2000) define validity as how accurately the account represents the participant's realities of the social phenomena and is credible to them. In addition, they focused on the assumption that validity refers not to the data but to the inferences drawn from them.
Determining validity in a qualitative study is based on validity procedures, and to select the proper procedure, we rely on two aspects: the lens used by the researcher and the paradigm assumptions.
Determining validity in a qualitative study is based on validity procedures, and to select the proper procedure, we rely on two aspects: the lens used by the researcher and the paradigm assumptions.
lens used by the researcher
lens used by the researcher
The lens is the viewpoint that a researcher uses when it comes to establishing validity in a study. For qualitative researchers, this is based on the views of people who conduct, participate in, or read and review a study instead of scores, instruments, or research design.
The following are three lenses that a researcher can use:
The Lens of the Researcher
The Lens of the Researcher
For this lens, the researchers determine how long to remain in the field, whether the data are saturated to establish good themes or categories, and how the analysis of the data evolves into a persuasive narrative.
The Lens of Study Participants
The Lens of Study Participants
Those who employ this lens seek to actively involve participants in assessing whether the interpretations accurately represent them.
The Lens of People External to the Study
The Lens of People External to the Study
Reviewers that are not affiliated with the project may help establish validity as well as various readers for whom the account is written.
paradigm assumptions
paradigm assumptions
"Quite different notions of what constitutes validity have enjoyed the status of dominant paradigm at different times, in different historical contexts, and under different prevailing modes of thought and epistemology" (Ratcliffe, 1983).
"Quite different notions of what constitutes validity have enjoyed the status of dominant paradigm at different times, in different historical contexts, and under different prevailing modes of thought and epistemology" (Ratcliffe, 1983).
Postpositivist Paradigm
Postpositivist Paradigm
Individuals embracing the postpositivist position both recognize and support validity, look for quantitative equivalence of it, and actively employ procedures for establishing validity using specific protocols.
Constructivist Paradigm
Constructivist Paradigm
The validity procedures reflected in this thinking present criteria with labels distinct from quantitative approaches, such as trustworthiness and authenticity.
Critical Paradigm
Critical Paradigm
In this perspective, validity is called into question, its assumptions interrogated and challenged, and the researchers need to be reflexive and disclose what they bring to a narrative.
Through the lens and paradigm assumptions, a two-dimensional framework can be created, and through this framework, nine validity procedures were made.
Through the lens and paradigm assumptions, a two-dimensional framework can be created, and through this framework, nine validity procedures were made.
Nine validity procedures
Nine validity procedures
Triangulation
Triangulation
A validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study.
Disconfirming Evidence
Disconfirming Evidence
The process where investigators first establish the preliminary themes or categories in a study and then search through the data for evidence that is consistent with or disconfirms these themes.
Researcher Reflexivity
Researcher Reflexivity
The process whereby researchers report on personal beliefs, values, and biases that may shape their inquiry.
Member Checking
Member Checking
consists of taking data and interpretations back to the participants in the study so that they can confirm the credibility of the information and narrative account
Prolonged Engagement in the Field
Prolonged Engagement in the Field
A validity procedure where researchers stay at the research site for a prolonged period of time, helping them build trust with the participants.
Collaboration
Collaboration
The process where the participants are involved in the study as co-researchers or in less formal arrangements.
The Audit Trail
The Audit Trail
A systematic procedure where the reviewer writes an analysis after carefully studying the documentation provided by the researcher.
Thick, Rich Description
Thick, Rich Description
A validity procedure where researchers describe the setting, the participants, and the themes of a qualitative study in rich detail in order for the readers to understand that the research is credible.
Peer Debriefing
Peer Debriefing
The review of the data and research process by someone who is familiar with the research, or the phenomenon being explored
These nine procedures may differ with each other based on the lens used by the researchers and their paradigm assumptions. However, the need for researchers to demonstrate that their studies are credible is always present.
These nine procedures may differ with each other based on the lens used by the researchers and their paradigm assumptions. However, the need for researchers to demonstrate that their studies are credible is always present.
You have reached the end of the module. We hope you learned a lot!
Page updated
Report abuse