RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.6 RESEARCH RIGOUR
109
The third category had six items to measure how teachers’ manage hands-on science.
Some of the statements that teachers had to rate in this sub-construct were: “I am not afraid of demonstrating experimental procedures in the classroom”, “I enjoy collecting materials and objects to use in my science teaching” and “I am interested in handling certain animals and insects to teach Science”.
The fourth category measured the developmental appropriateness of the Science Curriculum as perceived by the teachers. Some of the statements that teachers had to rate in this sub-construct were “I do not believe it is appropriate to introduce science to children at an early age”, “I am comfortable with determining the science curriculum that is developmentally appropriate for young children” and “I do not feel that young children are curious about scientific concepts and phenomena”. Teachers responded to the 25 positive and nine negative items using the three-point Likert Scale from agree to disagree.
110
(reliability)” Thus showing validity is enough to ensure reliability. They then explain, “As to how trustworthiness as validity can be assured” for a qualitative study (p. 316).
Although evaluating the correctness or accuracy of qualitative data is not straight forward, there are a few of approaches that may be used to augment the trustworthiness of qualitative research findings. Trustworthiness is the equivalent expression used in qualitative research as a gauge of the quality of research. Trustworthiness is the extent to which the data and data analysis are believable and trustworthy. Researchers propose that the trustworthiness of qualitative research can be determined by means of four approaches: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, which are equivalent to the quantitative criteria of internal and external validity, reliability and neutrality (Creswell, 1998; Krefting, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1981).
Credibility in qualitative research is characterised as the degree to which the data and data analysis are authentic and trustworthy. Credibility is comparable to internal validity in that both seek to discover how research findings validate reality. Lincoln and Guba (1985) maintain that ensuring credibility is one of most important factors in establishing trustworthiness (p. 296). However, according to the beliefs fundamental to qualitative research, reality is relative to meaning that people construct within social contexts (Armitage, 2007; Fink, 2000; Hitchcock & Hughes, 1989; Mertens, 2005; Patton, 2002; Richardson, 2000;
Schostak, 2003; Thomas, 2003). According to Fink (2000), qualitative research is valid to the researcher and not necessarily to others due to the possibility of multiple realities. The reader needs to evaluate the degree of its credibility based on his/her understanding of the study. Thus, from an interpretive perspective, understanding is constructed together and there is no purposeful certainty or reality to which the results of a study can be compared. Walker (cited in Merriam, 1998) says this involves, “Presentation of material informs where it is open to multiple interpretations” (p. 44). Consequently, detailed descriptions will be provided to allow readers the opportunity to both check the researcher’s interpretations and warrant for the assertions.
According to Lincoln and Guba (1981), research findings are transferable or generalisable only if they fit into new contexts outside the actual study context. Transferability is equivalent to external validity, that is, the degree to which findings can be generalised (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 186). However, case study research is done in order to understand the particular in depth rather than for the purpose of generalisation. Seale (1999) advocates that transferability is achieved by providing a detailed, rich description of the settings studied to
111
provide the reader with sufficient information to be able to judge the applicability of the findings to other settings that they know (p. 468). Hull (1997) and James and Mulcahy (1999) concur that the explanation ought to also contain credible analysis or interpretation. A rich and thick description of this study will allow the reader the opportunity to evaluate the findings of the research and arrive at their own conclusion on the transferability of the research outcomes.
Dependability is comparable to reliability, that is, the reliability of observing the same finding in equivalent circumstances. According to Merriam (1998), it refers to the extent to which research findings can be replicated with similar subjects in a similar context. It emphasises the importance of the researcher accounting for or describing the changing contexts and circumstances that are fundamental to consistency of the research outcome. Merriam (1998) argues that reliability in the traditional sense is not practical in a qualitative case study.
As a result, she suggests that reliability in this type of research should be determined by whether the results are consistent with the data collected. She proposes different ways in which this can be attained. The researcher must “explain the assumptions and theory behind the study”, use multiple methods of data collection and analysis and “explain in detail how data was collected to allow for an audit trail if necessary” (Merriam, 1998, p. 98).
According to Seale (1999), dependability can be achieved through auditing which consists of the researcher's documentation of data, methods and decision made during a thesis as well as its end products. Inspection for dependability necessitates that the data and descriptions of the research should be elaborate and rich. This is attained by means of an audit trail, which involves documentation of the methods, procedures and decisions made; the sample selection; and explanation of the categories used (Hull 1997; Merriam, 2002). James and Mulcahy (1999) affirm that reproducing the findings may be impossible. However, they are of the view that if researchers study the identical community of research participants at a similar time, the data sets obtained by these researchers and their interpretation should be largely analogous.
Confirmability is the degree to which the research findings can be confirmed or corroborated by others. It is similar to objectivity in quantitative research, that is, the extent to which a researcher is aware of or accounts for individual subjectivity or bias. According to Merriam (2002), “The confirmability of findings is based on the researcher’s critical self- reflection regarding his or her assumptions, world views, biases, theoretical orientations, values, and epistemological stances” (p. 23). In addition, this reflection should contain the
112
recognition of problems experienced during the course of the research, together with ethical issues (Hull, 1997).
According to Maree (2009), most qualitative research studies aim “to engage in research that probes for a deeper understanding of a phenomenon and not to search for causal relationships” (p. 81). Qualitative research attempts to delve into the person’s interpretations about a phenomenon and how they came to those understandings. Therefore, with qualitative research we are exploring an “emerging reality that we are describing and analysing” (Maree, 2009, p. 81). On this point, Richardson (2000) argues that triangulation is supported on the supposition of a permanent entity that can be triangulated. She dismisses this permanent entity as the aim of a qualitative study and recommends that we should not triangulate but crystallise.
Richardson (2000) explains that by using the concept of crystallisation we can move away from observing reality as being permanent and static to seeing the world as a crystal that has “an infinite variety of shapes, substance transmutations, dimensions and angles of approach” (p.
934). She further elaborates that crystallisation therefore provides us with a multifaceted and an in depth understanding of the phenomenon. The emerging reality materialises from a variety of data gathering methods and data analyses, which are used and it corresponds to our own interpretation of the phenomenon under investigation. Maree (2009) clarifies, “What we describe as our findings are those, which crystallise from the data.” He goes on to say, “This crystallisation reality is credible in so far as those reading our data and analysis will be able to see the same emerging pattern and this adds to the trustworthiness of our research” (p. 81). In this study, crystallisation will be obtained by comparing multiple sources of data. Cohen et al.
(2011) are of the opinion that the researchers’ confidence will increase if the data from the methods complement each other. If the data from the initial interview, document analysis, classroom observations and interviews complement each other then I will be assured of the findings.
In qualitative research, claims of trustworthiness rest on the data collection and analysis techniques. To enhance trustworthiness in this study multi-method strategy and mechanically recorded data are used. According to McMillan and Schumacher (2001), different strategies may yield different insights about the topic of interest and increase the credibility of findings. The mechanically recorded data was obtained through the use of tape recorders and videotapes to enhance the trustworthiness by providing an accurate and relatively complete record. Independent professionals who were employed to video tape the lessons acted as field workers and were not involved with the interpretation of the data. The study
113
provided a detailed description of the case via multiple data collection methods, an analysis of the themes or issues, and my interpretations or assertions about the case. Concerns regarding trustworthiness of observational techniques were limited, as the participants were observed over a period of time and not at a single sitting (Struwig and Stead, 2004, p.101).
Trustworthiness was ensured during observation, as the lessons were videotaped.
The chronological order of the instruments used was deliberate as each instrument provided a greater depth of information. The instruments were sequential as prerequisite knowledge is required for each step. The data collected were analysed qualitatively by organising and categorising the data according to the sub-constructs of the theoretical framework.