A few words on validity in qualitative research

A few words on validity in qualitative research

When talking about validity in qualitative research, it represents an important aspect that requires careful attention. Instead ot trying to provide a definition for validity here, we will refer to Lincoln and Guba (1985) as reported by Cohen et al (2011). In this manner, the two writers suggest a series of criteria for validiy in qualitative research: credibility (equivalent to internal validity in quantitative research), transferability (equivalent to external validity in quantitative research), dependability (reliability in quantitative research), and confirmability (objectivity in quantitative research (p.181). 

 

Later on, Cohen et al focus on internal validity, which “seeks to demonstrate that the explanation of a particular event, issue or set of data which a piece of research provides can actually be sustained by the data” (2011, p.183); and on external validity, which “refers to the degree to which the results can be generalized to the wider population, cases, settings, times or situations, i.e. to the transferability of the findings” (2011, p.186). 

 

If, on the other hand, validity is seen as a process, it is worth mentioning in a succint way two of Donmoyer's (2001) “five overarching purposes” of qualitative research, as summarized by Cho and Trent (2006), as corresponding to two paradigms that we would like to use in the future for our dissertation: validity in the thick description purpose (interpretive paradigm), and validity in the praxis/social change process (pedagogy of the oppressed paradigm).

Validity in the thick description purpose reflects the participants' point of view rather than the researcher's. Based on the model of thick descriptions (proposed by Geertz, 1973), this kind of validity “focuses on explicating the unique, idiosyncratic meanings and perspectives constructed by individuals, groups, or both who live/act in a particular context [...] interpreting locally constructed meanings from the emic or insider’s worldview” (Cho and Trent, 2006, p.328-329). In other words, although interpretations are developed by the researcher, they are valid as long as they reflect and elaborate on the values, beliefs, and context of the participants, looking to describe their reality in their own terms, rather than the researcher's. Furthermore, Cho and Trent consider that such validity upholds that “a one-to-one correspondence between reality and observation is never achievable and may not even be a major aim of those whose work is especially grounded in an interpretive research field” (2006, p. 329).

In contrast, validity in the praxis/social change process has the same dialogic nature as the pedagoy of the oppressed. The interaction and communication between researcher and participants must be continuous and reciprocal. Their relations should be based on equality, trust, and collaboration in order to address reality, analyzing problems, and finding solutions as a joint enterprise. This long process of communication, reflection, integration, and action, should ideally manifest itself as a transformation in the context of the participants (and the researcher). Once again, this type of validity echoes the intentions and conditions that Freire set for his pedagogy. Cho and Trent (2006) describe it thus:

"Change efforts become integral parts of the research design. In order for authentic change to occur, collaborative relationships between researcher and researched should be manifested during (and after) the research process. Authority, power, or privilege deployed, both implicitly and explicitly, from the side of the researcher needs to be deconstructed if not discarded entirely if the researcher hopes to make a realistic difference in either schools or society" (p.331-332). 

 

As we can see, validity as social change demands a deep commitment so as to allow the researcher to start transforming his own reality, and the participants' practically from day one of research. Only by changing his approach as one based on equality and democratic relations of power, can the researcher aspire to have a valid perspective when working with the participants, recording their words, collecting data, analyzing it, and then reporting his findings in a manner as faithful to the participants' views and perceived reality as possible. 

References:

Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research,     6(3), 319-340.  Retrieved from http://0-qrj.sagepub.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/content/6/3/319.full.pdf+html

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education.  New York:     Routledge.

References:

 Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6 (3), 319-340.

 

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge.