The conventional standard for guaranteeing the believability of research data is objectivity, reliability and validity. It is the degree to which the data and the data analysis are authentic and dependable. Cohen et al. (2011) maintain that validity is an important characteristic for effective research and if the information is invalid, it becomes insignificant to the researcher.
Therefore validity is a significant prerequisite for both quantitative and qualitative research.
In qualitative research, validity must be improved through the correct choices of a sampling method and the research instruments. Cohen et al. (2011) also maintain that reliability is mainly concerned with the accuracy and that the same research can be carried out on a similar group of participants within a similar environment.
Wayhuni (2012) explains that qualitative research widely uses Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) four-fold principles of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability to ensure research trustworthiness. Morrow (2004) suggests that these four criteria in qualitative
41
research are parallel to quantitative research criteria of internal validity and external validity, or generalizability, reliability and objectivity respectively.
Credibility in qualitative research is defined as the extent to which the data and data analysis are credible and truthful. Wayhuni (2012) states that to ensure credibility in a study, data generated must be accurate and reflect the phenomenon being studied. A qualitative research design was implemented in this study, consequently, guaranteeing that the generated data was credible through the use of a practical, convenient sample of participants.
The participants involved in this study were interviewed in the environment they felt most comfortable in. All the interviews were recorded in order to get first-hand information, and transcribed verbatim, which reduced mistakes and produced a complete record compared to taking interview notes. Pillay (2012) notifies us of certain inadequacies of recordings, claiming that this data-generating method does not portray the body language of the
participants and it intimidates some – therefore, the credibility of the interactions between the interviewer and the interviewee can be reduced. I addressed this issue by taking down field notes during the interview process, which enabled me to document participants’ body language and facial expressions and gestures. Participants were urged to contribute openly during the interviews, as the assurance of privacy was guaranteed. I endeavoured to meet some of the “quality criteria” for an ideal interview, as recommended by Cohen et al. (2011, p.424). Brief questions were asked and I probed and requested clarity on certain concerns that stemmed from the answers.
Transferability of research results is flexible or generalizable only if they fit into certain situations external to the real study situation. A qualitative researcher can develop
transferability by specifying the research methods, contexts, and expectations underlying the study (Cohen et al., 2011). It is attained by offering a comprehensive, valuable account of the circumstances learnt to provide the reader with adequate evidence to be competent to assess the applicability of the outcomes to other situations that they know. The researcher must offer a valuable, dense explanation of the study such that the data and the narrative speak for themselves.
42
Oka and Shaw (2000) believe that transferability represents the probability that the outcomes found in one site will be similar in the next site. Cohen et al. (2011) contend that qualitative data may have certain challenges – first, because it can be demanding to scrutinise bulk data, and also, because the reliability of the data is not always guaranteed, as the participants sometimes only answer according to what they think the researcher wants to hear. Therefore, throughout the interview process I constantly had to steer the participants to answer the questions without going off the topic or personalising the interview.
To guarantee transferability, I offered a thick description of all the procedures that were followed throughout the research. Oka and Shaw (2000) state that offering adequate
descriptive data is often called a thick description. This comprises of a full explanation of the setting under which one is conducting the research, so that readers of one’s research report can assess whether the outcomes obtained could be the same in their own research site.
Dependability is emphasised by the value of the researcher’s accountability to the research and defining the transforming settings and situations that are essential to reliability of the research outcome. Oka and Shaw (2000) point out that this refers to the extent to which people can depend on the results of the research and whether they can use the instruments in their own situations and produce the same results. To replicate results may be challenging, as participants have diverse opinions and react differently to the same set of questions.
Therefore, in terms of this study, I ensured dependability by asking the same set of questions to all six participants and making sure that I steered the conversation along the right path not allowing for much deviation.
Confirmability is the extent to which the research results can be established or validated by others. It is a good idea for the researcher to record all gathered data in a well-organised, retrievable structure so that it can be made accessible to others if the results are tested. Data from this research was recorded, and then transcribed for accessibility. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state confirmability can be seen as similar to impartiality in established quantitative research designs.
Rule and John (2011), Cohen et al. (2011), and Oka and Shaw (2000) all maintain that confirmability mainly involves confirming that the information and its handling were not
43
misleading, but can be established by the researcher through meetings with the participants.
These academics also argue that researchers should associate their claims and analyses with the significance that the participants ascribe to their experience. The researcher has to ensure that his or her explanation corresponds to the meaning that the participants have. In the context of this study, validation was sought with participants in order to check whether my understanding of what was said was accurate. To achieve this, the participants were provided with the transcripts so that they could confirm the accuracy of our conversations. In addition to this, as the discussions continued, I checked if my understanding was reliable with what they were independently revealing to me.