Babbie and Mouton (2011:276-278), du Plooy-Cilliers, et al. (2014:253-260) and Marshall and Rossman (2016:44-48) are in agreement that the traditional terms reliability, validity, objectivity and generalisability are no longer applicable in a qualitative research approach. They argue that the modernisation of these terms for a qualitative study are credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. The overarching term for reliability and validity in a qualitative study such as this one is trustworthiness. According to Babbie and Mouton (2011:276-277), the basic issue of trustworthiness is that a study cannot be transferable unless it is credible, and it cannot be deemed credible unless it is dependable. The following four elements to ensure the trustworthiness of the adopted research approach were therefore adhered to:
3.9.1 Credibility
Du Plooy-Cilliers, et al. (2014:258) and Marshall and Rossman (2016:46) assert that credibility refers to the accuracy with which a researcher interprets the data that were provided by the participants. The researcher therefore enhanced the credibility of this study by spending long periods with the participants in their natural settings (Durban SAPS DPCI and NPA DPP STU offices in Durban) in order to understand them better and gain insight into their lives. The researcher remained in their field until data saturation had occurred and constantly pursued different interpretations of the data to share these data interpretations with the participants. To enhance the credibility of this study, the researcher tentatively analysed the data and the relevant literature and documents, and also drew from her own research experiences to separate relevant from irrelevant data. To further strengthen the credibility of this study, the researcher adhered to the following strategies as outlined by Babbie and Mouton (2011:277) and Du Plooy-Cilliers, et al. (2014:258):
83 3.9.1.1Triangulation
The researcher examined multiple data sources and used different data collection methods such as documentary study, IDIs and KIIs and an extensive literature review for triangulation purposes as proposed by Babbie and Mouton (2011:277.
3.9.1.2 Referral adequacy
The researcher documented the interviews by means of a voice recorder and recorded them in audio and electronic forms as illustrated in the charts on her computer.
3.9.1.3 Peer debriefing
The researcher requested a colleague of similar academic status who was not involved in this study but who had a general understanding of the field of investigation to review the analysis process of the data and to check the findings.
3.9.1.4 Member checks
After the data had been analysed, the researcher went back to the participants to check whether her descriptions of their lives reflected their authentic views and perceptions. This process is strongly advised by Du Plooy-Cilliers, et al. (2014:259) as previously stated Supra.
3.9.2 Dependability
Du Plooy-Cilliers, et al. (2014:259) assert that dependability refers to “the quality of the process of integration that takes place between the data collection method, data analysis and the theory generated from the data”. Babbie and Mouton (2011:278) hold the view that dependability in an inquiry means that “it must provide its audience with evidence that, if this study was [sic] to be repeated with the same or similar participants in the same or a similar context, the findings would be the same”.
84
The researcher attained dependability for this research in that she:
• Conducted semi-structured interviews with the participants and posed mostly open-ended questions that could be answered openly and frankly;
• Asked the participants the same interview questions to address the study objectives and research questions under investigation;
• Ensured that the confidentiality of the participants was guaranteed and that their interviews were conducted in privacy;
• Recorded the participants’ answers on a voice recorder and in writing and transcribed these responses verbatim. This would ensure that, should future researchers conduct similar studies using a similar interview schedule, the same findings or results will be obtained in different settings with the same people at different times, or with a separate groups of similar people at the same time;
• Utilised the services of her UKZN Supervisor to review and assess this study results on a regular basis. The Supervisor provided guidance and identified various shortfalls that the researcher had to attend to;
• Used relevant sources from the literature that enriched this study; and
• Adhered to ethical considerations by citing and referencing other authors’ work in the prescribed manner.
3.9.3 Transferability
Babbie and Mouton (2011:277) and Du Plooy-Cilliers, et al. (2014:258-259) assert that transferability is “the ability of the findings of a research study to be applied to a similar situation and delivering similar results”. In a qualitative study, the obligation for demonstrating transferability rests on those who wish to apply it to the receiving context, meaning the reader of the research study. The researcher is of the view that the findings of this research can be applied to similar situations, as the information that was obtained from the participants constituted their expert views as they were all trained and qualified investigators who had considerable experience in investigating personal income tax fraud or they were qualified prosecutors who had prosecuted personal income tax fraud over a number of years.
85
Transferability in a qualitative study depends on similarities between the ‘sending’ and
‘receiving’ contexts. The researcher thus collected sufficiently detailed and descriptive data that contained detail and precision to allow the reader or audience to make judgements regarding the transferability and validity of the findings. To achieve this goal, the researcher utilised a purposive sampling method in order to maximise the range of specific information that could be obtained from the respondents about the problem under investigation (Babbie & Mouton, 2011:277).
The expert accounts that the respondents provided were based on the same foundations as those that any other expert within the forensic investigation and prosecution community would have provided. In this context, the researcher is satisfied that thick and relevant explorative and descriptive data were collected for this study.
3.9.4 Confirmability
Du Plooy-Cilliers, et al. (2014:259) and Lichtman (2014:387) assert that confirmability refers to
“how well the data collected support the findings and interpretation of the researcher”. This implies that it indicates how well the findings flow from the data. Therefore, when other scholars look at the data, they must come to the same conclusions as the researcher. This will confirmed and corroborate what the researcher did. The researcher referred the findings back to the participants and discussed their interview transcripts and her analysis of the data in the final research draft. This process eliminated any inaccuracies and maintained the objectivity of this study. This study was also subjected to an internal and external review process to have it assessed for relevance and compliance with sound research principles. This process ensured an objective assessment and addressed the confirmability standards of the study.