Social Justice and human rights theory
3.10. Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research
Krefting (1991:215) states that, just as there is a need to examine the accuracy and trustworthiness of various kinds of quantitative data in different ways, there is also a need to look at qualitative methods for different ways in which to ensure the quality of data. It is critical
59
to use alternative models appropriate to qualitative designs that ensure rigour without sacrificing the relevance of qualitative research. Strategies to increase the trustworthiness of qualitative research must be applied throughout the different phases of the research. Krefting (1991) refers to Guba’s (1981) model of trustworthiness of qualitative research; this is based on the identification of four aspects of trustworthiness: truth value, applicability, consistency and neutrality. Guba (1981) maintains that these strategies are not exclusive to any one design; they can be used with both quantitative and qualitative design. The difference lies in the application thereof.
3.10.1 Truth Value
As noted by Krefting (1991:217), truth value is concerned with whether the researcher has established confidence in the truth of the findings for the informants and the context in which the study was undertaken. It establishes how confident the researcher is with the truth of the findings based on the research design, informants and context. For qualitative research, truth value is usually obtained from the discovery of human experience as lived and perceived by informants.
Truth is subject-oriented and is not defined by researchers. Schrink and Auriacombe (2005:414) refer to this aspect of trustworthiness as credibility; the extent to which there is a match between a research participant’s views and the researcher’s reconstruction and representation thereof. The goal is to demonstrate that the research was conducted in a manner that ensures that the subject of investigation was accurately identified and described and that it is credible to those who constructed the original reality. To ensure credibility, researchers needs to focus on testing their findings against various groups from which data were drawn or persons who are familiar with the phenomenon being studied. Credibility is achieved if people who share the experience immediately recognise the description, that is, when informants are able to recognise their experiences in the research findings. Truth value is perhaps the most important criterion for the assessment of qualitative research. For this study, a credibility test was conducted on the day the researcher delivered a preliminary presentation of the study at the CCJD head office, in the presence of the CCJD CEO, research director and programmes director. This presentation represented peer examination, which entails the researcher discussing the research process and findings with an impartial, experienced colleague; in this instance the research supervisor. The intention of this presentation was threefold: firstly to provide an update on progress to fellow researchers and the research supervisor in the form of peer review/ team review and secondly, for CCJD staff to get a sense of the direction of the study, to engage them on issues for clarity and create a dialogue on the study, and finally, for the researcher to consolidate the study.
60 3.10.2 Transferability
Transferability can strengthen a study’s usefulness for other settings by designing the study for multiple cases, multiple settings, multiple informants and more than one method of inquiry. The researcher must provide sufficient descriptive data to allow readers to evaluate the application of the data to other contexts. In this study, transferability was achieved by triangulation of the data collection method; hence the use of both interviews and focus groups (multiple informants). The researcher is responsible for providing an adequate data base to allow a transferability judgement to be made by others. This is in line with Tierney and Clement’s (undated) assertion that while qualitative research cannot be generalised, it can be transferred. Transferability in this regard entails the ability of the author to evoke in readers an understanding of the research project in a manner that enhances understanding of the research and provokes questions regarding similarities and differences. In this study, both the researcher and research assistants kept a case study journal which was a useful source for transferability purposes. Transferability offers research participants an opportunity to learn something about the problem they are faced with.
3.10.3 Consistence and Dependability
Krefting (1991:216) asserts that dependability is similar to consistence. It implies trackable variability; that is, variability that can be ascribed to an identifiable source. Along the same line of thinking, Schrunk and Auriacombe (2005:442) note that dependability refers to the stability of data over time and in different conditions; it focuses on whether the research process is logical, well-documented and audited. Dependability in qualitative studies assumes a dynamic universe and social phenomenon, thus resting on a set of assumptions opposite to those of quantitative studies that assume an unchanging and accurately measurable and static view of the phenomenon under study. Dependability can be achieved by conducting code-recoding of data;
the researcher codes data for the first time and waits for a couple of weeks, then recodes the data to see if the results are the same. This can be enhanced through the triangulation of data collection methods. Dependability can also be enhanced by repeated observation of the same event and re-questioning informants. In this study dependability was enhanced by triangulation of data collection methods as well as interaction with other researchers about the data.
3.10.4 Neutrality and Confirmability
The fourth criterion for measuring trustworthiness, neutrality, refers to the degree to which the findings are the sole function of the informants and conditions of the research and not other motivations and perspectives (Krefting, 1991:216). Qualitative researchers try to increase the
61
worth of their findings by decreasing the distance between the researcher and the informants.
Neutrality is shifted from the researcher to data so that rather than focusing on the neutrality of the researcher, the focus is the neutrality of data. Confirmability of data can be used as a criterion to measure neutrality. In this study confirmability of data was achieved through extended interaction with informants, outside the focus group session; when refreshments were served to informants, discussion and dialogue continued between the researcher, research assistant and the informants. What was different was that the informants initiated and pursued conversations and debates, picking up on issues that arose from the focus group or extending it to other relevant issues that they felt were not covered or thoroughly explored in the focus group.
In most cases these conversations and debates, while not structured or recorded, confirmed the focus group discussion.
3.10.5 Triangulation as an aspect of Confirmability
Triangulation as an aspect of confirmability enhances the establishment of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Flick (2007) cited in Auriacombe (2010:440) states that triangulation occurs when one or more methodological approaches is brought to bear on a single point with the aim of enhancing the scientific rigour of the study. In a qualitative study triangulation can occur where more than one case, investigator, paradigm, theory and method of data gathering and analysis are used in a single study with the aim of enhancing scientific rigour. For this study, triangulation was achieved through peer examination, data capturing methods, data analysis, researcher reflexivity and research informants. In peer examination, the researcher and fellow researchers engage in extensive dialogue and deliberation on the study and aspects of the study.
These interactions can be spontaneous, informal and unplanned but can also be planned. They usually occur post-sessions with informants; the researcher would engage in deep conversation and dialogue with the research assistant. During the write up process they would be sparked by issues emanating from the research journal or the researcher seeking clarity or confirmation of certain events during the focus group or interview sessions. These would also take the form of formal sessions arranged by the research supervisor. Methodological triangulation was another strategy employed to enhance credibility; this entailed the use of more than one method of data capturing. The study relied on focus groups and semi-structured interviews, even though both these methods reside within the same research design tradition. The individual and group sessions elicited interesting points for deliberation and reflection. Triangulation on analysis of data, a combination of content analysis, thematic analysis and matrix analysis was used, as shown in Chapter 4.
62 3.11 Researcher Reflexivity
Watt (2007:82) states that researcher reflexivity refers to a researcher being aware of the effect he/she has on the outcomes of the research based on the premise that knowledge cannot be separated from the knower. This enables the researcher to be conscious of his/her bias, thus enhancing the trustworthiness of the study. It creates a means for continuously engaging with the phenomenon under study and facilitates understanding of both the phenomenon and the research process. Reflexivity allows the researcher an opportunity to stand outside of self and learn about one’s own assumptions, behaviour, thoughts and attitudes to the phenomenon under study. The researcher kept a research journal where events, thoughts, prejudices and excitements were recorded both prior to and after entering the field. An example would be that prior to the field experience the researcher was of the opinion that rural people are generally not in favour of traditional justice structures and traditional leadership. As the session progressed, the informants proved to be engaged in traditional structures and actively participated in the focus group discussions. Keeping a research journal assisted the researcher with a quick source of reference and access to her thoughts, observations and assumptions while in the field.