CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.11 ACADEMIC RIGOUR
80
3.9.4.6 Data analysis
Grundy and Kemmis (1981) suggested that it is during the reflective stage of the AR cycle that data analysis occurred. This stage provided the researcher with important insights with which to move the process forward. The practitioner is the sole arbiter of interpretation (French, 2009). Consequently, the interpretation of others was vitally important because they provided insights that were not obvious to the researcher. These insights were elicited through discussion or through the deliberation of participants.
81
Grove (2005), reliability means that if the instrument is repeated on the same participants at different periods, the results of the questionnaire will be the same. The more reliable a measure is, the fewer research participants are needed for the study.
Validity of the questionnaire refers to two aspects, namely whether the questionnaire measures the concept in question and whether the concept is measured accurately (Klopper and Knobloch, 2010). Face validity implies that the instrument looks as though it is measuring the appropriate concepts (Polit and Beck, 2008). It is a subjective judgment that the instrument measures what it intends to measure in terms of the relevance and presentation of the questionnaire (Babbie, 2010). This includes the questionnaire being readable, exhibiting clarity of content and language, and being unambiguous and clear. In this study, the literature guided the researcher concerning the development of the main concepts and an interview guide was developed. The Cronbach alpha test of the questionnaire suggested a high level of reliability.
Content validity refers to the judgments of nurse leaders about the extent to which the content of the questionnaire appears logically to examine, and comprehensively to include, the characteristics of the domain being explored. The objectives, questions and instrument were compared to ensure consistency of questions with objectives as illustrated in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Content validity
RESEARCH QUESTION RESEARCH OBJECTIVE INSTRUMENT
1. How informed are nurse leaders of their role in health policy development?
1. To establish the level of nurse leaders’ knowledge of their role in health policy development
8, 14, 19, 20, 20.1–20.8
2. How have nurse leaders participated in the health policy development process?
2. To analyse the level of
participation of nurse leaders in the health policy development process
10, 11, 12, 18
3. What factors facilitate
participation of nurse leaders in health policy development?
3. To determine factors that facilitate participation of nurse leaders in health policy
development
16, 22.1–-22.9
82
4. What factors limit
participation of nurse leaders in health policy development?
4. To determine factors that limit participation of nurse leaders in health policy development
15, 21.1–
21.10,
5. What strategies could be adopted to enhance nurse leaders’ participation in health policy development?
6. To identify strategies for enhancing nurse leaders’
participation in health policy development
22.1–22.9
Attrition
This was borne in mind by the researcher as it would be a threat to the validity of the study.
This was done by selecting participants who would be interested in the topic under study.
The sample included all the participants that were available for the purpose, and therefore could not add further to attrition. The Hawthorne effect was addressed by ensuring ethical considerations throughout the duration of the study. Neuman (2011) describes the Hawthorne effect as a reactivity result that occurs when participants are aware that they are being studied.
3.11.2 Qualitative rigour (validity and reliability of qualitative data)
Qualitative validity means that the researcher employs certain procedures to check for accuracy of findings. On the other hand, qualitative reliability implies that the approach used by the researcher is consistent across various projects (Gibbs, 2007, cited in Creswell 2014). The reliability of the findings is enhanced from the perspective of the participant, researcher or reader of the research. Qualitative researchers advocate the use of terminology tailor-made for qualitative studies, such as trustworthiness. Qualitative data are ascertained by trustworthiness (Polit and Beck, 2008). Trustworthiness ascertains the value of qualitative data (Polit and Beck, 2008). Qualitative data collected at various stages included data from in-depth interviews and from the data recording sheets. Polit and Beck further suggested that criteria for judging the soundness or trustworthiness of qualitative research as an alternative to more traditional quantitative oriented criteria (validity and reliability), are helpful. These criteria include: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and authenticity.
Credibility
This refers to results that are interpreted accurately by the researcher and trusted by the participants (Polit and Beck, 2008). According to Cohen and Crabtree (2006), credibility
83
may be ascertained through prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer debriefing and member checks. These facilitate openness and ensure that phenomena of interest are accessed and observed. In this study, multi-data sources and collection methods were used. Furthermore, data collected were reviewed and discussed by the participants, validation group members and the researcher. This review was also necessary because the action research approach was used for the study, and the findings from one phase formed the basis for planning and intervention in the second phase.
Transferability
According to Polit and Beck (2008), transferability means that findings drawn from research in a certain context could be applied or transferred to other settings or contexts. Research findings are transferable when they are appropriate to contexts outside the study situation.
The degree of transferability is determined by the degree of correspondence between the two contexts. Seale et al (2005), asserted that transferability is realised by making a detailed, rich description of the settings studied, to provide the reader with enough information to be able to recognise the applicability of the findings to other settings that they know. A detailed sequence of events was maintained by keeping notes of the whole process, to allow the prospective researchers to make a judgment on whether the data were applicable to their own context. To allow for transferability of findings to other similar contexts, 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.
Dependability
Dependability has to do with consistency (Polit and Beck, 2008). This was ensured with the use of multiple data sources that were quantitative and qualitative. Consistency considers that if the interviews are repeated on the same participants in a similar context, the result will address the same objective. All sources used in the study are identifiable as described in the study. Data were collected from various hospitals and different contexts, which were hospitals and provincial and national offices. Information from all data sources was triangulated. The aim was to identify common understandings of the experiences of focus, as well as differences of opinion. Analysis and interpretation combined the two forms of data to seek convergence among the results (Creswell, 2012).
84
Confirmability
Confirmability refers to the objectivity or neutrality of results and the extent to which they could be confirmed in terms of accuracy, relevance and meaning (Polit and Beck, 2008).
The results were analysed and discussed with participants and others emailed. Reviewing the results during reflection and by conducting capacity-building workshops also ensured confirmability.
Authenticity
Authenticity is the extent to which the researcher clearly presents findings with all the associated emotions and realities, portraying the real lives of the participants. In the presentation of qualitative data, the researcher used narratives to provide a fair description of the experiences of the participants. The researcher was immersed in the data through data collection; therefore, validation occurred throughout the research process. Validity strategies were also employed. Member checking was used to determine the reliability of the qualitative findings. The major findings were taken back to the participants during the capacity-building workshop and they were given an opportunity to comment on the findings.
3.11.3 Credibility and validity in the intervention phase
Greenwood and Levin (2007) define credibility as the arguments and the processes necessary for having someone trust research results. The authors further distinguished two different types of credible knowledge, internal and external credibility.
Internal credibility refers to knowledge that is reliable or believable to the group generating it. This kind of knowledge is fundamentally important to AR because of the collaborative nature of the research process. Its direct consequences in altered patterns of social action constitute a clear test of credibility, a test that many abstract social science frameworks lack. Members of communities or organisations are unlikely to acknowledge the “objective”
theories of outsiders as credible if they cannot recognise their connection to the local situation, or because local knowledge suggests that the frameworks are either too abstract or simply wrong for the specific context. The participants willingly participated in the study and collaboratively acted during the capacity building workshop. This resulted in ownership of the knowledge and the policy generated.
External credibility refers to knowledge capable of convincing someone who did not participate in the inquiry that the results are believable. This is a complex matter. Because AR depends on a combination of reflection and action and the cogeneration of new
85
knowledge in specific contexts, conveying effectively the credibility of this knowledge to outsiders is a difficult challenge (Greenwood and Levin, 2007). Narratives were central to AR. Thus, according to the authors, individual cases and stories, the stuff of many AR writings, have immense power to alter theories. This is the crux of the credibility-validity issue in AR.
Heikkinen et al (2012), however, identified principles for validation in action research which were applicable in the policy workshop.
The principle of historical continuity: The occurrence of action does not begin in a vacuum, and action never ends. The researcher therefore paid sufficient attention to the historical background of the topic through literature reviews and data collection and expressions of the workshop participants on how they had participated in health policy development.
The principle of reflexivity: The principle of reflexivity is based on the belief that reflective thinking is crucial for an action researcher. Reflexivity means that the researcher is aware of the impact of his/her personal experiences while interacting with the other participants in the action research. The principle of reflexivity also stresses that the research should be transparent; that is, the material and methods should be described in some way in the report.
The principle of dialectics: The principle of dialectics is based on the impression that social reality is constructed as a dialectical process in interpersonal discussion. The researcher respected this principle by giving optimal space to different voices and interpretations of the events.
The principle of evocativeness: From this viewpoint, good research awakens and provokes thought about things in a new and different way. The most significant learning experiences are always both cognitive and affective in nature. The researcher and participants were capacitated in the health policy development process and development of the policy brief. New knowledge gained provoked their thought processes and they had meaningful deliberations (Heikkinen, Huttunen et al, 2012).
86
3.12 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS