CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPING THE TOOLS AS A MASTER CARVER
3.10 RIGOUR AND TRUSTWORTHINESS
As a narrative researcher, I have to bear in mind that the stories that the participants tell may be true or partly true. All the research methods that I employed will yield the subjective experiences and narrative recount of what the participants wish to divulge. As such, it is not easy to ascertain which stories are partially correct. It is for this reason that Lincoln and Guba (1985) addressed four measures for assessing rigour and
87
trustworthiness that researchers are required to take heed of, irrespective of their research paradigm: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.
3.10.1 Credibility
Credibility is described as the trust that can be placed in the veracity of the research findings (Macnee & McCabe, 2008). Credibility is the set of standards that need to demonstrate that the research has been undertaken ethically and with proficiency (Rallis
& Rossman, 2009). To ensure credibility, I used member checks, an exercise that entailed my participants verifying the data that had been collected. Here themes were identified and discussed with each participant. This exercise was to ensure that all the information that had been presented was accurate. Raw data that had been collected was verified by submitting it to the participants for correction. This process was conducted at the end of the interview process after all the data had been collected. This was important, as my interpretation had to be in sync with what my participants intended to say. I also attempted to remove researcher bias by continually reflecting on the research process. In implementing the process, I ensured that my interpretation of the data was in keeping with my participants and also that the data was reflected as intended (Merriam, 1998).
3.10.2 Transferability
Transferability is the degree to which the results of a qualitative study can be transferred to another setting or context with other research participants (Korstjens & Moser, 2018).
However, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985), transferability takes into consideration the aspect of applicability. As a researcher, I provided thick descriptions of the participants and the research process. Not only did I describe their experiences and behaviour, but I also provided a rich account of the descriptive data, which included the context within which the teachers lived and worked. I offered an account of their experiences within their families and their family background, their school education and university experiences, their experiences within the different school quintiles, and so on.
In this way, their behaviour and experiences could become meaningful to the reader. I also outlined in detail the research methods that had been used to generate data. In this qualitative study, there was no intention to generalise, because according to Shenton
88
(2004), people’s experiences take place in diverse contexts. The responsibility is on the reader to decide whether the findings of this study are transferable to their research settings. The reader will have to make that judgement call (Korstjens & Moser, 2018).
3.10.3 Dependability
Dependability, according to Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2010), refers to the possibility of tracking the procedures and methods undertaken by a researcher to generate field texts. A dependable study clearly describes all the research steps taken — from the inception of the research study, to the progress made along the way, to the final reporting of the findings (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Detailed reporting, according to Shenton (2004), offers future researchers the possibility of replicating the study, if not necessarily to obtain similar results.
To ensure dependability in my research, I engaged in peer examination of my research study (Bitsch, 2005). Peer examination was achieved during our research cohort meetings, where I discussed my research process with other doctoral students who had also engaged with qualitative research themselves. This exchange allowed for openness and honesty about my entire research process, and for areas of weakness to be revealed and gaps to be filled (Bitsch, 2005).
3.10.4 Confirmability
Confirmability is “concerned with establishing that data and interpretations of the findings are not figments of the inquirer’s imagination, but are clearly derived from the data” (Tobin & Begley, 2004, p. 392). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), confirmability of a qualitative inquiry can be achieved through triangulation. The concept of triangulation is based on the notion of fixed points or objects that can be triangulated (Nieuwenhuis, 2010), and employing more than one research method within a single study is referred to as triangulation (Stake, 2005). Triangulation in this research was achieved using multiple data-generation methods, and by including my participants as co- researchers.
89
However, this is a qualitative study, and the aim was to probe for deeper comprehension and insight into a phenomenon, and not to investigate causal relationships. Richardson (2000) therefore proposes the term “crystallisation”, which refers to the practice of authenticating results by the use of several methods of data generation and analysis. One way to ensure trustworthiness is to employ multiple methods of data generation. For this study, I generated data using unstructured, in-depth, face-to-face interviews, photovoice, collage inquiry and poetic inquiry. Through multiple data collection methods, this research was able to corroborate (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and elaborate on data from these various sources (Rossman & Wilson, 1994).
3.11 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF TEACHERS’ PERSONAL-