CHAPTER FIVE
3.9 ACADEMIC RIGOUR
strategies taken within a specific context. Intervening conditions, according to Strauss and Corbin (1999), can be thought of as the broad structural context pertaining to the phenomenon which may have an influence by facilitating or constraining the
action/interaction strategies in a particular context. Consequences refers to outcomes, both intended and unintended, of actions and responses (Pandit, 1996). Consequences are represented by questions as to what happens as a result of those
actions/interactions or the failure of persons or groups to respond to situations by action/interaction, which constitutes an important finding in and of itself (Strauss &
Corbin, 1999). Figure 3 (on page 78) depicts the components that formed parts of this study’s paradigm model.
process of generation theory of which firstly, the data needs to be valid, reliable and credible (triangulation of the findings); secondly, the research process should be adequate (trustworthiness) and thirdly, the research findings should be
empirically grounded” (p. 253).
3.9.1 Credibility
Credibility refers to the authentic quality of the data in that it should portray what the researcher was looking for (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Credibility in qualitative research is defined as the extent to which the data and data analysis are believable and trustworthy. Qualitative research is valid to researchers, to whom it gives an accurate and useful representation of the particular instance that has been studied (Stake, 1988). Miles and Huberman (1994) acknowledge that researchers often
‘get it wrong’ and that findings often simply do not fit the data. Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggest that credibility is aimed at establishing that the enquiry was conducted in such a manner that the subject was accurately identified and described. Credibility in qualitative research is usually obtained from the
discovery of human experiences as they are lived and perceived by informants (De Vos, 1998), is the ‘truth’ of the findings from the informants (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) and relates to issues such as the truthfulness of responses, accuracy of records and authenticity of historical artefacts (Anderson, 1990).
It is essential that the enquiry must be credible to the participants as well as the constructors of the original multiple realities (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). To achieve credibility the researcher used several measures. The researcher gave a detailed description of the research process and the process of data analysis. Data and
categories discovered were discussed with the research supervisor at regular intervals and other experts in qualitative research were consulted. The researcher also used triangulation, which refers to the use of different methods of data collection. The researcher promoted this aspect by using three data collection techniques, being in-depth interviews, analysis of documents and observation of group sessions. Membership check, which refers to the researcher’s ability to recheck the participants to validate the accuracy of the information given and recorded, was also applied (Khalifa, 1993). The researcher went back to those interviewed to verify if the recorded data was accurate or needed correction or elaboration on construct.
3.9.2 Dependability
Dependability refers to the stability of the data in the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is the process of detailing the consistency, reasonable stability over time and convergence of accounts across methods such as observations of informants, contexts, connectedness to theory, data quality checks or audits and peer review of coding (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). According to Krefting (1991), dependability refers to whether the findings of the research would be consistent if the study were repeated with the similar subjects in a similar context. De Vos (1998) maintains that consistency is the extent to which repeated administration of a particular measure will provide the same data or the extent to which a measure administered once, when repeated with different people, will produce equivalent results.
Researchers should be in a position to trace each others’ methods of research (Kock, 1994). This is called the ‘audit trail’ and is based on ‘dense or thick descriptions’ (Merriam, 1988), which implies a complete, literal description of the
incident or entity being investigated. Dependability, according to Seale and Erasmus (2005), can be achieved through auditing, which consists of the
researcher's documentation of data, methods and decisions made during a thesis, as well as its end products. To ensure dependability, the researcher conducted data quality checks or audits, peer review coding and consultation of qualitative research experts. The qualitative research experts were consulted to monitor the data collection process, and the analysis and interpretation of the data.
3.9.3 Confirmability
Confirmability refers to the objectivity of the research process and outcome, and is the degree to which data confirms the findings and is free of researcher bias. This can be achieved by ensuring that the conclusion depends on the subjects and condition of enquiry rather than on the investigator (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Confirmability is the degree to which the research findings can be confirmed by another researcher (Krefting, 1991).
De Vos (1998) asserts that confirmability refers to the degree to which the findings are a function solely of the informants and conditions of research and not of other biases, motivation and perspectives. In qualitative research, the value of findings increases when the distance between the researcher and the informants decrease (De Vos, 1998). Marshall and Rossman (1994) insist that in qualitative research, the researcher must be able to confirm the findings of his research by keeping all collected data in a well-organised, retrievable form so that the researcher can easily make them available if the findings are challenged or if any other researcher wants to re-analyse the data. Confirmability, in this study, was promoted by taking
detailed field notes, by taping and transcribing interviews verbatim to identify variations in responses and by making field notes available for audit checks and verification. This was done following data collection, where the field notes were made available to interviewees for cross checking and verification.
3.9.4 Transferability
Transferability is the assumption that the findings derived from research in a particular context will also apply in other similar contexts. We say that research findings are transferable when they fit into contexts outside the study situation. The degree of transferability is determined by the degree of similarity or ‘goodness of fit’ between the two contexts (de Vos, 1998). Seale and Erasmus (2005) advocates that transferability is achieved by providing a detailed, rich description of the settings studied to provide the reader with sufficient information to be able to judge the applicability of the findings to other settings that they know. Guba and Lincoln (1994) define transferability as the extent to which the research findings from one research study can be applied into other contexts or to other participants.
Transferability is more the responsibility of the person wanting to transfer the findings to another situation or population than of the researcher of the original study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Marshall and Rossmann (1994) agree that it is the responsibility of the investigator who is interested in applying the findings to another setting or a group of people to demonstrate the relevance of the first set of findings to the new context. According to Denscombe (1998), transferability does not necessarily prove that the researcher ‘got it right’; but that the researcher achieved consistency across techniques and that the findings are not tied to a
particular method of data collection. To ensure that the developed theory is
applicable to the context under study, the researcher used purposive sampling, gave a detailed description of the context or setting and provided detailed descriptions of the whole process of the research study, including the research procedures and findings to enhance transferability to other similar contexts.
3.9.5 Triangulating the Findings
One of the most important ways to improve the trustworthiness of qualitative research findings, as mentioned above, is by triangulation, which is used as a protocol to ensure the accuracy of data collected (Tellis, 1997). Since different methods entail different weaknesses and strengths, methodological triangulation consists of a complex process of playing each method off against the other so as to maximise the validity of the efforts leading to a reduction of the threats to internal and external validity (Denzin, 1989). According to Maxwell (1998), triangulation reduces the risks of systematic distortions inherent in the use of only one method.
Because of the importance of triangulation as a criterion, the concept is briefly discussed. Triangulation refers to using multiple data collection methods, data sources and analysts to check the validity of the findings. If similar themes are noted in the data collected, then the credibility of one’s interpretation is enhanced (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Leedy, 1997).
Triangulation corrects biases when there is only one researcher investigating a phenomenon. It also prevents the researcher from accepting the validity of findings too readily. In addition, it serves to enhance the scope and clarity of constructs developed during the investigation (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). According to
Babbie and Mouton (2001) “triangulation is the best way to elicit the various and divergent constructions of reality that exist within the context of a study are to collect information about different events and relationships from different points of view” (p. 277). Triangulation is ubiquitous in the methodological literate of the social sciences and is regarded as a metaphor rather than a precise concept.
Furthermore, Fielding and Schreier (2001) state that triangulation has come to be used to determine which of the meanings is most appropriate for conceptualising the combination of methods. In view of this, these authors distinguished three meaning to triangulation: (a) triangulation as the mutual validation of results obtained on the basis of different methods (the validity model); (b) triangulation as a means toward obtaining a larger, more complete picture of the phenomenon under study (the complementary model); and (c) triangulation in its original
trigonometrically sense, indicating that a combination of methods is necessary in order to gain any (not necessarily a fuller) picture of the relevant phenomenon at all (the trigonometry model) (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Fielding & Schreier, 2001). In this study, the several data collection techniques that were used were observation (with field notes), individual interviews (with memos and audio recording) and document analysis. The collected data was reduced using qualitative techniques and categories were identified and clustered as have already been explained above.