Regardless of the type of research being undertaken, researchers are obliged to abide with the issues of validity and reliability during the entire research (Merriam, 2009). Validity and reliability are crucial in any study for an enquiry which does not prove to be valid and reliable is deemed worthless by the readers and users of that research (Cohen et al., 2011; Nieuwenhuis, 2007). However, most scholars consider the concepts validity and reliability as positivist in nature and thus to be associated with quantitative research (Merriam, 2009; Nieuwenhuis, 2007). This does not mean qualitative research is lacking in terms of rigour. Researchers operating in the qualitative paradigm also display rigour in their studies, but because they have different perspectives of reality and worldviews, they prefer to consider validity and reliability from a viewpoint congruent with their assumptions and use terms that are relevant to their practice of research (Merriam, 2009). It is therefore common for qualitative researchers to replace the terms validity and reliability with their own concepts. Lincoln and Guba (1985, pp. 76-77) proposed “credibility as an analog to
111
internal validity, transferability as an analog to external validity, dependability as an analog to reliability and confirmability as an analog to objectivity.” They viewed a combination of these criteria as standards for establishing or ensuring trustworthiness or rigour in qualitative research. Thus, while quantitative researchers speak of research as being valid and reliable, qualitative researchers view their enquiry in terms of being trustworthy indicated by the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Since my study is qualitative, I will explain how I addressed trustworthiness through the use of its four criteria.
4.8.1 Credibility of the research
In a research inquiry, credibility deals with the match between research findings and the reality in the data or what is actually contained in the data (Merriam, 2009). A researcher therefore is obliged to demonstrate that her interpretation of phenomena is supported by data. I made every effort to ensure credibility in this study in different ways.
Triangulation was one of the strategies I used to ensure credibility. In a broader sense, triangulation refers to the use of multiple methods of data collection, multiple data sources, multiple investigators and multiple theories for interpreting data (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Cohen et al., 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, I used triangulation of data sources and theories to enhance credibility. As mentioned in chapter three, I used different feminisms to discuss the findings. Although these feminisms fall under the broad theory of feminism, they offer different perspectives of or explain the oppression of women from different perspectives, hence, they are considered as stand-alone theories. In terms of data sources there was different specific data that I focussed on in the text. As noted in section 4.4 above, I used all visual images of people as data and also the entire written or verbal text. In this way, I used different data sources identified in the visual images and verbal text.
Furthermore, credibility was ensured by providing rich data to support my interpretation and conclusions when presenting the findings. This was achieved by quoting from the sources in the form of both citations and visual images. These were included in the analysis chapters as evidence of my conclusions. This strategy is known as use of participants’ language and verbatim accounts (McMillan &
112
Schumacher, 2001). I also made use of figures and statistics to support the claims made. In a feminist study such as this, statistical data is essential to reinforce the claims in order to raise the consciousness of the reader and users of the research to lobby for change and social justice in the portrayal of women in textbooks.
The technique of member checking, or respondent validation, was also used to ensure credibility of the findings. This strategy involves confirming one’s findings with participants observed or interviewed and or the documents studied (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2010; Merriam, 2009). Just as field researchers confirm their findings with their participants, either formally or informally, I also continuously corroborated my findings with the data in the textbook which were my research objects. As pointed out in sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.3, I always validated the quantitative findings by returning to the data in the textbooks. Thus, after the total counts were calculated based on my notes, I verified my conclusion by counting again straight from the textbook to ensure accuracy of meaning. I similarly verified the findings that emerged from the analysis of the verbal text by corroborating it with the data in the textbooks.
Attempts were also made to search for negative cases when I analysed the data inductively by means of open coding. McMillan and Schumacher (2001, p. 410) describe a negative case as a “situation, a social scene or a participant’s view that contradicts the emerging pattern of meaning.” As I inductively analysed the data that was generated from the visual semiotic analysis and the verbal text I actively sought negative cases which did not “fit within the pattern” (Patton, 2002, p. 554). This helped me to draw conclusions which matched the data. To cite one example, though at first analysis I concluded that all women referred to in the text as wives were wives of important or famous men, the search for negative cases disproved it for I discovered that some of the women were wives of unimportant men who were not even mentioned in the text.
To some extent, the values a researcher holds affect the interpretation of findings.
Therefore for an inquiry to be credible, it is essential for the researcher to declare his or her position in relation to the study. This strategy is known as researcher’s position or reflexivity (Merriam, 2009). Lincoln and Guba (2000) argue that this strategy involves critically examining oneself as a researcher and declaring explicitly
113
one’s predispositions, biases and assumptions regarding the enquiry being undertaken (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). I declared my position up front as a feminist researcher and assumptions that feminists hold in chapter 1. This declaration would help readers of the research understand my background and how the values I hold had influenced the conduct of the study, the interpretation of the data and the conclusions reached (Maxwell, 2005; Merriam, 2009).
Based on the above, I ensured credibility in my study by triangulating data sources and theories, cross-checking my findings with the data and by quoting from the textbooks in the form of citations and visual images as evidence for my argument. I also avoided making generalisations of the findings by taking into consideration negative cases and by declaring my biases and dispositions upfront. In the next section I will explain how the issue of transferability was addressed.
4.8.2 Transferability of the research
Transferability in qualitative research could be equated to generalisability in quantitative research. While it is easy to generalise the findings of a study to the population where the sample was drawn, this is not possible with qualitative research because findings in the latter are specific or typical to the experiences of a particular group of people or contexts in which they occurred (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Cohen et al., 2011; Merriam, 2009). Findings in qualitative study can only be comparable or transferable to other situations.
Transferability refers to the extent to which findings of a study could be applied to other contexts or situations and or other participants (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Cohen et al., 2011; Merriam, 2009). However, as Lincoln and Guba (1985), Merriam (2009) and Babbie and Mouton (2001) argue, the responsibility of applying the findings to other contexts lies with the readers or users of the research and not the researcher.
Therefore this means that the researcher has the responsibility to provide enough information to enable the reader to be able to apply the findings to other situations. I tried to enhance transferability of the findings of my study by providing a thick and rich description of the setting of the study and the research objects in chapter one and in section 4.4 in this chapter. Knowledge of the setting and sample would enable the readers of the research to compare with and apply the findings to other textbooks
114
with similar characteristics. Furthermore, I presented the findings in chapters five and six in detail with evidence in form of quotes and visual images extracted from the textbooks.
Thus I tried to enhance transferability of the findings of my study by describing in detail the setting of the study, the research objects and providing thick description of the findings accompanied by evidence. This information would enable the readers of the research to apply the findings to other situations or history textbooks with similar characteristics.
4.8.3 Dependability of the research
While in quantitative research a study is deemed reliable if it produces the same results after being replicated by other researchers, in qualitative research the enquiry is judged dependable if the results or findings are consistent with the data collected (Merriam, 2009). There are a number of strategies that qualitative researchers employ to ensure dependability of their findings. In this study, I used investigator position or reflexivity, triangulation, negative case analysis and an audit trail. I already explained triangulation, negative case analysis and reflexivity in section 4 9.1 above as these are used to address both credibility and transferability in a study.
According to Merriam (2009, p. 222), “an audit trail in qualitative research describes in detail how data were collected, how categories were derived and how decisions were made throughout the inquiry.” Efforts were made in this study to show an audit trail by describing in detail the whole research journey from data collection to data analysis. Refer to sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3 and 4.6.4. Where appendices were needed to be consulted, I included them to enable the reader to follow the research process. I also explained how categories were derived for content analysis. It was also emphasised that some categories and themes emerged from the data during the process of inductive analysis of the data. Furthermore, I accounted for whatever decisions were made in the process of the research. I was able to recall some of the details such as dates and decisions made because I kept a research journal in which I recorded activities concerning the study, reflections and decisions made. A research journal is useful in the construction of the audit trail of the study (Merriam,
115
2009). A clear audit trail of the study would give confidence to the reader that the findings of the study are dependable.
4.8.4 Confirmability of the research
Babbie and Mouton (2001, p. 278) conceptualise confirmability as “the degree to which the findings are the product of the focus of the inquiry and not the biases of the researcher.” Confirmability was ensured by providing a detailed account of the study from data collection to data analysis (i.e. through audit trail). The data analysed was fully described, not only by mentioning the textbooks as data, but also specifying what exactly in the textbooks was used as data to be analysed. In addition, the procedure I followed for each method of analysis was systematically explained. This audit trail would enable the reader “to determine if the conclusions, interpretations and recommendations can be traced to their sources and if they are supported by the enquiry” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001).
However, in feminist research, no matter how detailed the audit trail, you cannot rule out the biases and values of the researcher in the interpretations of the findings. This is because feminist research is by nature value-laden and political in its objective (Abbott et al., 2005; Cohen et al., 2011; Haig, 1999; Kenway & Modra, 1992).
Furthermore, the fact that the researcher is an integral part of what is being researched makes the research inevitably biased and value-laden (Abbot & Wallace, 1997; Abbott et al., 2005; Birks, 2002; Brooks & Hesse-Biber, 2007). However, this does not mean confirmability is not possible in feminist research.
The explanation in the preceding subsections indicates that I attempted to ensure the trustworthiness of the enquiry. This was achieved by ensuring that the findings were credible, transferable, dependable and confirmable as previously discussed.