4.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE RESEARCH .1 Validity and reliability in quantitative research
4.6.2 Trustworthiness in qualitative research
The term trustworthiness is used in qualitative research to express the procedures researchers utilise to ensure the rigour, credibility, and quality of a study.
Trustworthiness is a loaded quality assurance concept comprising the four aspects of credibility, transferability, comfirmability, and dependability. The role of trustworthiness in qualitative research overlaps with the positivist notion of “validity” (Morgan &
Ravitch, 2018). Many criteria which apply to assessing the quality of qualitative research are also applicable to quantitative research (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen &
Razavieh, 2010). While there might be different interpretations of the meaning, the comprehensive methods of striving to ensure trustworthiness in qualitative research have similarities in some places with those of quantitative research; they are not mutually exclusive. Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Ary et al. (2010) suggest that the critical criteria of trustworthiness in qualitative research – namely credibility (the truth value), transferability (generalisability), dependability (consistency), and confirmability (neutrality) – are analogous to internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity in quantitative research respectively. These trustworthiness strategies were employed in the current study to assure the rigour of the research. The ways in which these four aspects of trustworthiness were addressed are detailed in the following paragraphs.
116 4.6.2.1 Credibility
Credibility in qualitative research is the confidence that can be placed in the fidelity of the research findings (Anney, 2014; Ary et al., 2010). It deals with how confident one can be in one’s observations, interpretations, and conclusions and how congruent the findings are with reality. Credibility is the extent to which a research finding shows an accurate picture of reality. It refers to confidence in the truthfulness of the data and in the data interpretations. In addressing credibility, researchers must demonstrate an accurate picture of the phenomenon under study.
As suggested by Maxwell (2005) and Johnson and Christensen (2014), this study applied the following strategies to promote the trustworthiness of the qualitative data:
an extended period of fieldwork, low-inference descriptors (using direct quotations), use of multiple data sources, use of multiple investigators, applying multiple methods of data collection, extended fieldwork, freedom from the researcher's biases, and thick explanation of the issue under study. The instruments of the interview schedule were also pre-tested with four persons selected from the pilot-selected HLIs as discussed in 4.6.1.1. Moreover, triangulation, member checking, and peer scrutiny (also known as peer debriefing) were conducted to ensure objectivity and make the research process and findings free of the researcher's biasness. Detail descriptions of these strategies follow.
4.6.2.1.1 Triangulation
Triangulation is checking the credibility of research findings through various sources of evidence. It can considerably enhance the trustworthiness or credibility of a research finding (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Triangulation is an analytic method used to substantiate a finding with facts from two or more diverse sources during data collection and analysis (Yin, 2011). It is collecting diverse evidence from different sources to verify or corroborate a particular explanation, fact or event being reported by a given study to augment the validity of a study, and it can be applied throughout a study (Yin, 2011; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Triangulation is vital because one can learn more by perceiving from various perspectives than by observing from only a single perspective (Neuman, 2014). This study triangulated data collected from a wide range of informants and data sources through different data collection instruments (interviews, documentation, observation, and questionnaires). Triangulation was also
117
applied to strengthen the interpretations and inferences drawn from the study by triangulating the qualitative and quantitative analysis results. Moreover, other literature related to the topic was reviewed and compared with the findings.
4.6.2.1.2 Member checks
Credibility means providing a credible reflection of what the participants told about attitudes, behaviour, and opinions that gathered in a given survey (Neuman, 2014).
For this reason, in-depth research searches for evidence and contrary evidence and reporting the research procedures and data transparently are vital elements in building the trustworthiness and credibility of research (Yin, 2011). Member checking allows all or some survey participants to verify or comment on the significant findings to make the report objective and accurate (Neuman, 2014; Creswell, 2014). As a final step in a study, member checking allows the researcher to verify whether the respondents' views are stated correctly (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tobin & Begley, 2004 as cited in Nowell et al., 2017). In this study, soft copies of verbatim transcriptions, written interpretations, and summarised versions of participants' views were sent back to the participants via email to make corrections where they felt there were misinterpretations or inaccuracies. Significant findings of the final draft report were also sent to the participants to verify their trustworthiness. Feedback from the research participants helped the researcher call attention to some missed information for further insight.
Allowing research participants to read what has been written about them shows courtesy to the participants (Ary et al., 2010). Member checks built trust between the researcher and participants and ensured that the data captured was correct.
4.6.2.1.3 Peer scrutiny
It is worth mentioning how data is analysed and the assumptions considered in the analysis process to evaluate the trustworthiness of research by readers (Nowell et al., 2017). Discussion with peers who are familiar or unfamiliar with the research title can deliver valuable input to research work (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Therefore, to ensure the credibility of the research, the preliminary and final findings of this study were commented on by the researcher’s colleagues from the ETA, and by academics and researchers with deep knowledge of the issue under study. Moreover, frequent consultations with colleagues took place regarding the study's findings, in addition to
118
the presentation of initial findings at a national academic research conference in Ethiopia.
4.6.2.1.4 Extended fieldwork
Prolonged engagement in fieldwork refers to spending adequate time speaking with a range of people, observing various aspects of the setting, and developing friendly relationships with members of the organisation or community (Pandey & Patnaik, 2014). Prolonged fieldwork provides sufficient time for the researcher to gather plenty of rich data and observe a full range of activities that will contribute to valid interpretations. It also enables the researcher to be trusted by the participants and accordingly obtain honest and thorough responses. An extended time at the research site provides more opportunities for the researcher to check various viewpoints and allows participants to become familiar with the researcher's presence (Ary et al., 2010).
During fieldwork, persistent observation is also vital to identify those elements and characteristics in the situation that are more pertinent to the issue or problem being studied and focus on them in detail (Pandey & Patnaik, 2014).
During the fieldwork, the researcher remained for ten days at each sampled HLI to distribute and collect questionnaires and simultaneously to conduct interviews, observations, and document analysis. Such activities allowed the researcher to explore in-depth information about the leadership and the quality of education and create a close rapport with the informants and HLI officials. As a staff member of the ETA, the researcher's previous work relationships with HLI officials created an excellent opportunity to obtain candid information and collaboration from the informants and officials. Moreover, to secure a sufficient level of credibility, the researcher created conditions conducive to obtaining in-depth responses from the participants. The researcher encouraged participants to involve themselves intensively in the study by convincing them of the benefits of the study for their institution.
Telephonic interviews were held for some of the informants who preferred telephone interviews. Moreover, during and after each of the site visits, intensive telephone conversations were held to discuss any issues that needed further clarification.
119 4.6.2.1.5 Freedom from researcher bias
In qualitative studies, researcher bias is a source of invalidity. Bias may result from hearing only what one wants to hear, from selective observations, or from allowing personal feelings, preferences, and attitudes to influence the interpretation of data.
The most common strategy to control for bias is reflexivity. Reflexivity is the use of self- reflection to recognise one's own biases and seek them out actively (Ary et al., 2010).
During the process of the research study, the researcher tried his best to remain aware of and refrain from such biases.
4.6.2.2 Transferability
Transferability refers to the extent to which qualitative study findings can be transferred, generalised, or applied to other settings or groups (Ary et al., 2010;
Shenton, 2004). The researcher is responsible for providing sufficiently detailed, rich, and thick descriptions of the context of a study to potential readers or research users so that they can make the necessary judgements and comparisons about the similarity to other situations. The transferability of a set of findings to another context depends on the similarity between the study context and other contexts (Ary et al., 2010). To allow transferability, researchers need to provide detailed information about the context of their research work for readers to judge whether the existing setting is similar to another situation with which they are familiar and whether the findings can reasonably be applied to the other setting. The thick description refers to the process of research, from the context of the study and data collection to the production of the final report (Anney, 2014). In this study, careful attention was given to providing detailed, accurate, and inclusive descriptions of the participants and the study context to help the reader determine transferability.
4.6.2.3 Confirmability
Confirmability refers to impartiality or the extent to which the research procedures and interpretation of results are free of bias (Ary et al., 2010; Shenton, 2004). It is the potential for congruence between two or more people regarding data relevance, accuracy or meaning. To achieve confirmability, researchers need to demonstrate that the findings of their study emerge from the accurate data collected during their fieldwork and not from their predispositions. The audit trail is the main strategy for
120
demonstrating confirmability (Shenton, 2004). By providing an audit trail, researchers enable other researchers to reach the same conclusions or not, given the same context and data. Peer review, reflexivity, and triangulation of methods (all discussed previously) are other strategies used to enhance confirmability. In this study, confirmability of the study was assured by applying the strategies mentioned above.
4.6.2.4 Dependability
Dependability refers to the stability of data and research findings over changing conditions and time. The credibility of research cannot be achieved without dependability. As a result of changes in the context of studies, qualitative studies expect variability. Therefore, consistency is the degree to which variation can be explained or tracked (Ary et al., 2010). For future reference and verification, it is necessary to have supporting evidence demonstrating how the research was carried out.
Dependability can be examined using replication logic, audit trail, stepwise replication, interrater comparisons, triangulation, and code recoding (Ary et al., 2010). Among these strategies, according to Ary et al. (2010), an audit trail is one of the best ways to investigate dependability. Audit trails provide a mechanism by which others can verify the uniqueness of the situation and how decisions were made. It documents how, when, and why the study was conducted. The audit trail contains records of the inquirer's decisions about what to observe and why or whom to interview, the raw data gathered in interviews and observations, files documenting how working hypotheses were developed, refined, and tested, records of data analysis, data reduction, and the findings of the study. Therefore, to assure the study's dependability, the researcher kept records of contextual descriptions, sample selection process, data collected from respondents, tape recordings, and detailed field notes in a well-organised and retrievable form. In this regard, all soft and hard copies of the survey data were preserved securely with the researcher during and after the study.
In line with the terms of the UNISA Research Policy, the data will be preserved for a minimum of five years after submitting the report and the results. The researcher’s supervisor can also access the secured data. Using the audit trail as a guide, based
121
on the organised data, any independent third-party auditor can investigate whether the findings of this study are grounded in the collected data.