RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.10. QUALITATIVE RIGOR
Qualitative research brought about the emergence of a new language in the need to find concepts that aptly represented validity and reliability in the naturalistic or interpretevist paradigm (Shenton, 2004; Winter, 2000). Winter, (2000), commenting on validity in qualitative and quantitative research, states that “Reliability and validity are tools of an essentially positivist epistemology”. The term qualitative rigor has been established to describe the means through which integrity in the research process is maintained (Tobin and Begley, 2004). Moreover, Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) model or ideas of trustworthiness provided naturalistic researchers new ways of ensuring validity, reliability and generalizability. These authors recommend four criteria for ensuring trustworthiness, namely, (i) credibility; (ii) transferability; (iii) dependability and (iv) confirmability.
Qualitative rigor and trustworthiness have been regarded as a cornerstone in assessing the credibility, auditability and fittingness of the substantive or middle range theory which is generated through grounded theory design (Rolfe, 2006; Chiovitti and Piran, 2003; Hall and Callery, 2001). Khalifa (1993) explains that if the qualitative research study does not explicitly indicate measures to ensure trustworthiness, the resultant theory has no credibility. Strauss and Corbin (1998; 1990) and Glaser and Strauss (1967) affirm the integral role of theoretical sampling and saturation of concepts as a means of ensuring rigor. Furthermore, Strauss and Corbin (1990) acknowledge the thick descriptions of researchers in their presentation of data collection and analysis procedures; the use of theoretical memos, which offer reflexivity on the researchers meanings and constructions of the emergent themes; and triangulation of the data sources, which ensures trustworthiness of the emergent theory from the grounded theory study.
86 In this study, the following four criteria of trustworthiness were maintained, namely, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.
3.10.1 Credibility
Explained by Guba and Lincoln (1994), and Creswell and Miller (2000), credibility is aimed at addressing the authenticity of the data collected and assesses the degree to which the theoretical concepts which emerge are actually grounded in the data. Miles and Huberman (1994) and Merriam (1998) state that credibility addresses the fit of the data and how congruent the findings are with the reality of the collected data. Janesick (2000) and Tobin and Begley (2004) further explain that credible techniques of data collection and analysis ensure that the participants views and expressions are accurately represented in the researcher’s meaning Denzin and Lincoln (1994) and Botma, Greeff, Mulaudzi and Wright (2010) suggest prolonged engagement, triangulation of data and member checking as some techniques which can be employed to ensure credibility. To achieve credibility, the following measures were used in this study.
Triangulation of data was achieved through four sources of data, namely reflective discourse sessions/FGDs, in-depth individual interviews, field-notes yielded from unstructured observations and document analysis of reflective journal entries. Emergent categories from the all four data sources were initially assessed against the data and research supervisor and a detailed outline of the data analysis and data collection process was also provided. Apart from ensuring confirmability, the use of multiple sources of data allowed the researcher to verify the data findings and ensure that diverse constructions of the reality of the participants’ experience in terms of the process of critical reflective skill development and the development of the CoP were wholly captured through the various medium of data collection. Moreover, given the role of the
87 researcher as the initial facilitator in the critical reflective discourse sessions; the use of multiple sources of data safe-guarded the threat of bias that may have been inferred by the researcher in terms of the data collection process and the nature of information collected. In this case the use of multiple sources of data; especially that of the reflective journals and the reflective discourses minimized the threat of external bais of the researcher.
Prolonged engagement of the data collection process was achieved. The establishment of the CoPs and the development of the participants in terms of critical reflective practice was explored over an extended time period, which allowed the process to be fully assessed. Data collection extended from February 2010 to the beginning of September 2010, a total of eight months of data collection. The element of prolonged engagement of the data collection was thus achieved, and this facilitated greater insight into the participants’ meanings and social symbolic attachment that were assigned to the various phases in both the group dynamics in the development of the CoPs and the stages of learning and development in terms of critical reflective practice skills.
The prolonged engagement between the researcher and the participants facilitated feelings of familiarity and rapport between them. This promoted credibility in that the researcher reached a level of trust with the participants where they opened themselves to deeper sharing, which created opportunities to verify the information and theoretical concepts that had emerged.
Moreover, this served to ensure honesty in the data collected from the participants and to minimize the threat of bias of the researcher on the nature of data collected, given the researcher’s role as the facilitator in the initial reflective discourse sessions. Explained by Shenton (2004), sustained data collection increases the chances of participants behaving and responding more naturally as opposed to once off data collection techniques.
88 Member-checks were used to assess whether the theoretical concepts that emerged from the data analysis were consistent with the participants meaning. Throughout the entire period of research group participants of both groups engaged in peer debriefing at the end of each reflective discourse session/FGD, which allowed for verification of the emergent categories at the end of each data collection and data analysis session. Furthermore, at the end of the data collection sessions when the development of the CoPs was explored and documented, participants were given the opportunity in a group session to read the related transcript evidence and extracts against the written version of the data analysis to assess congruency in the researchers meaning and their intended meaning.
3.10.2 Transferability
The generalisability of the emergent theory and the research inquiry is addressed through transferability (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Transferable measures factored into the qualitative research ensure that study findings can be applied to other situations (Munhall, 2003). Tobin and Begley (2004) caution that in naturalistic studies transferability is limited to case to case transfer or in this study, group to group transfer as the context or settings are only comparable if they are similar. Lincoln and Guba (1985) advise researchers to provide sufficient contextual information about the fieldwork sites so that reader of the findings can make a transfer to another setting. To ensure transferability of the study findings and the emergent theory of this study, the following strategies were used:
A thick and dense description of the study setting, rationale for the choice of the study setting in terms of the province, and the sampled institutions are provided. Further to this a thick description of the sampled institutions and the sampled participants and a description of the
89 participants in terms of their demographic attributes are provided. A full and dense description of the data collection sessions in terms of duration and time period of each phase is also described.
The inclusion criteria guiding the purposive sampling of the participants further provides a description and a rationale for the choice of the sampled participants in terms of the demographic characteristics and the rationale for choosing those criteria. A detailed description of the process of theoretical sampling of the reflective discourse sessions/FGDs was also detailed, which allows for transferability of a similar process related study in term of assessing the development of a process, such as the establishment of a CoP over time.
3.10.3 Dependability
Likened to reliability in the positivist paradigm, dependability focuses on the stability of the research data (Creswell and Miller, 2000; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). The fluid nature of human experiences which is central to the naturalistic paradigm of qualitative research sometimes makes the stability and dependability of study findings problematic (Shenton, 2004). This author suggests that a thick description of the study setting, the data collection plan and the procedure for data collection should be specified.
In this study, a thick and dense description of the study setting, the data collection methods and a log of the data collection sessions has been provided. This provides a glimpse for future researchers wanting to transfer and replicate a similar study to engage with the data collection procedures employed in this study. This procedure is also referred to as an audit trail (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). This ensures that the research process can be traced in logical sequence. Further to this, the expertise of the research supervisor on grounded theory and qualitative research was used to ensure the dependability of the coding process and the
90 emergent categories. The monitoring of the data collection process served as peer review and the examination of the emerging findings added to the dependability of the research process.
3.10.4 Confirmability
Confirmability refers to the objectivity of the study procedures and the findings thereof (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).Moreover, Shenton (2004) mentions that in order to maintain confirmability, steps must be taken to ensure that the research findings are a result of the participants’
experiences and ideas, rather than the preferences of the researcher. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest an audit trail, reflexivity and triangulation as methods to ensure confirmability. An audit trail ensures that a step by step procedure of the data collection process, reasoning for choice of design and critiques of the design of methodology are provided (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
In this study an audit trail was maintained. The rationale for the paradigm and the choice of design were detailed and all data collection procedures and reasons thereof were provided. The researcher transcribed verbatim all audio recorded data collection sessions, typed reflective journal entries as they were documented and descriptively and reflexively noted all field-notes immediately after each data collection session. All of this information was provided to the research supervisor for peer examination.