CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.7 Trustworthiness and responsibility
Reflexivity itself is seen as a tool for rigour, trustworthiness and ethical practice in qualitative
research as it increases the credibility of the researchers work by honestly exposing his or her position and influence (Faulkner et al., 2016). However, although this may provide a solid basis for the approach in this study, I use a mix of methodologies focusing on both narrative and dialogical
approaches. In terms of narrative, Loh (2013) is of the view that narrative inquiry should observe and be guided by both established criteria in the narrative field and in the broader qualitative arena for wider acceptance. He also asserts that it is not the facts themselves that are important, but how the facts are interpreted and what meaning is made from the inquiry. Although there are many different approaches to deal with these issues in narrative, methodological rigour should be visible and in keeping with quality procedures that have found consensus among the research community.
41
Loh (2013) further highlights the importance of considering issues of trustworthiness, verisimilitude, narrative truth and utility. In this sense, we are aiming at a validation that, in terms of Lincoln &
Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness criteria includes credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability; and in terms of verisimilitude, an interpretation must ‘ring true’ and be believable (as used in Loh, 2013). Following this path means that what the research is trying to do is to make the
‘best’ sense of the data or stories to the exclusion perhaps of other possible interpretations. In following a dialogical approach, we are faced with a quandary as our aim here is not to box the analytical process but to open it to multiple interpretations (Frank, 2010). In a dialogical approach interpretations are considered valid if they are “responsible” (in itself a complex notion). Overall, Frank (2010) asserts: “A responsible relation to stories is a moral imperative, one aspect of which is never to control stories through their interpretations. The inescapable loop is that stories teach how to be responsible in response to stories.” He is of the view, then that narrative analysis should not be about resolving contests of interpretation but rather about promoting dialogue – it should aspire to
“have some affect on whether and how long people listen to each other’s stories and how open they are to those stories” (p. 110 - 111).
As I follow overall a dialogical and reflexive approach, it is vital that I do not offer any interpretations as final or to claim any authority over these research findings. However, I do believe rigour and visibility is important, and in terms of Loh’s (2013) views also find that assessing the process of the research through listed and recognised criteria is valuable, offering an openness that rather than
‘finalising’ the findings, actually can open it to others (the research participants, peers and audience) to make their own interpretations. Consideration of utility is also important in terms of both narrative criteria (Loh, 2013) and the transformative approach followed in this research. Utility of the research is detailed in the discussion section (see Chapter 6). For these reasons I have used a very open research process and detailed my methodology so that it can be verified by outside inspection. I have also clearly stated the theoretical foundations of this study and how I have applied the theory and the approach taken, including each of the steps taken the data collection and analysis. Careful planning was used to ensure that specific techniques were suitable for the purpose chosen in relation to the particular research participants and the focus of the phase of study. Further, findings have been well illustrated drawing on the actual words of participants using quotations and poetry.
Following a dialogical and participatory process has meant that the findings also closely reflect the experiences of participants, and this was re-checked in dialogue with participants as I was writing papers and exchanging ideas (member checking). Trustworthiness, in this sense, is closely tied with following an ethical approach to research (as highlighted below in 2.6), and being aware of my own biases and the need to forefront the research participants’ voices and interpretations rather than my own ideas. Beginning with my own story of reflexivity changed the way that I approach research and led to a reflexive approach that makes it imperative for me to follow participatory methods as much as
42
possible, and acknowledges my subjectivity. This has required that I constantly reflect on my position of authority as a researcher. Further, the ongoing reflexive dialogue with my academic supervisor meant that there were continuous checks in place and discussions around possible interpretations and choices to be made in going forward (peer validation). In terms of the refugee youth project, I also worked closely with the gatekeeper, himself a refugee from the DRC and a HP master’s graduate, and discuss this further below in the section on ethics.
Adopting criteria as was done by Loh (2013) from Lincoln & Guba’s (1985) general criteria for trustworthiness; Loh’s additional criteria more specifically in terms of narrative; and Frank’s (2010) dialogical approach, I highlight the pertinent validity issues in relation to this study in summary below. I do this generally here as a reflexive “check” on the systems I put in place in following a reflexive, dialogical approach, which in places used different methodologies under this umbrella, rather than following a specific set of rules (see Table 5).
43
Table 5: Overview of validation techniques used throughout the study
CRITERIA TECHNIQUES USED IN THIS STUDY
General Trustworthiness criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) Credibility (internal
validity)
The overall study used involved a variety of methods (triangulation)
There was prolonged engagement with participants (Education phase:
involved data collection and feedback from students over a number of years. Community practice: five workshops over five weeks, an additional feedback session and ongoing youth involvement)
Member checking through continuous dialogue
Peer checking: ongoing, reflexive dialogue with academic supervisor Transferability
(external validity)
Thick description: Acknowledgement of context through methodology and detailed description, e.g.in terms of own story and case study Dependability
(reliability)
Use of a range of qualitative methods for data collection, from interviews to creative methodology
Clear and detailed methodology
Clear theoretical frameworks
Careful recording of data and storage of data Confirmability
(objectivity)
Staying close to the stories and actual words of the participants
Acknowledging subjectivity rather than claiming objectivity and using reflexive methods to highlight researchers position
Additional narrative inquiry criterial (Loh, 2013) Verisimilitude
(believability)
Member checking and peer validation through dialogue and feedback
Process of publication in peer-reviewed journals opened up the process of peer and audience validation
Utility (usefulness;
contribution)
The aim of the study was to contribute to using the knowledge gained in educational and community contexts
The study contributes to understanding the development of critical reflexivity as a process, and offers a clear theoretical guide to better understand and ‘use’ the concept in practice
Dialogical inquiry criteria/ approach (Frank, 2010) Ethical
responsibility
Acknowledging subjectivity and bias
Taking a non-expert and participatory, dialogical approach Openness to
multiple interpretation
Research based on social constructionist worldview and narrative and dialogical principles that forefront the voices of research participants
Facilitation of dialogical spaces as places for open conversation and stories to grow among participants