The historical tradition of logical empiricism in marketing research has created debate regarding the authenticity and credibility of research conducted outside this paradigm. This sentiment was echoed by Correa (2013) who suggested that the dogmatic and domineering positions regarding the concept of ‘rigour’ and regarding the quality of research in general which are held within the concept of a certain type of scientific method have generated disputes and led to a breakdown in communication between researchers and academic communities (Correa, 2013, pp.209-210)86. Henceforth, the purpose of this section in the chapter was to validate the quality of the research study within the framing of the critical research paradigm.
The critical perspective holds that researchers should uncover the hidden assumptions about how narrative accounts are constructed, read and interpreted (Cresswell & Miller, 2000;
Winter, 2000). This was interrogated earlier in the chapter where specific reference was made to the elements of critical enlightenment; critical emancipation; the rejection of economic determinism; the critique of instrumental or technical rationality; the concept of immanence; a reconceptualised critical theory of power: hegemony; a reconceptualised critical theory of power: ideology and a reconceptualised critical theory of power: linguistic/discursive power87. Therefore, validity, remained an important concept in assessing the claims that are put forth in any research study, be it quantitative or qualitative studies. However, the conditions by which a quantitative study is deemed valid does not necessarily apply to qualitative studies.
86 Manifestations of injustices that affect academic communities and researchers who defend certain theoretical, epistemological and political perspectives (Correa, 2013).
87 The implication for validity is that validity is called into question, its assumptions interrogated and challenged and the researchers need to be reflective and disclose what they bring to the narrative. (Cresswell & Miller, 2000)
72
Internal validity and external validity are concepts that are applicable to both quantitative and qualitative studies. Internal validity seeks to demonstrate that the explanation of an issue or set of data provided in the research can actually be sustained by the data (Cohen et al., 2011).
The same authors suggest that external validity would relate to the extent to which research findings can be generalised amongst the wider population.
However this condition for external validity is not applicable to the context of this study that is framed within a qualitative research design. Also, the issue of reliability is viewed differently in relation to quantitative and qualitative research. The issue of reliability is discussed later in this section.
The criteria for validity evoked by Lincoln and Guba (1985) was used. Lincoln and Guba’s criteria for validity included:
a) Credibility (replacing the quantitative concept of internal validity) b) Transferability (replacing the quantitative concept of external validity) c) Dependability (replacing the quantitative concept of reliability)
d) Confirmability (replacing the quantitative concept of objectivity)
The choice of validity procedures is governed by the lens researchers choose to validate their studies and researchers’ paradigm assumptions (Cresswell & Miller, 2000). The critical paradigm presupposed that the researcher has chosen, in this study, to allow the participants viewpoints to emerge through their portrayals. In so doing, the participants were encouraged to offer their opinions within the context of their own constructed view of their social context.
This was evident in the use of semi-structured and non-directive interviews88.
In relation to the criteria of credibility, and the extent to which the data is considered ‘accurate’, this was established in this study through triangulation. Triangulation refers to a combination of sources and methods used in order to gather data. Cohen et al., (2011) suggested that triangulation attempts to explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one standpoint.
88 Validity is how accurately the account represents participant’s realities of the social phenomena and is credible to them (Swandt, 1997) in (Cresswell & Miller, 2000).
73
This study utilised a combination of data sources and methods through the literature review, document analysis, the multiple case study approach and the use of interviews as well as reflexive journals to obtain data. Hence, referential adequacy was also established through the review of literature. This validity procedure uses the lens of the researcher but is clearly positioned within the critical paradigm where individuals reflect on the social, cultural and historical forces that shape their interpretation (Cresswell & Miller, 2000).
The issue of transferability was maintained through the provision of detailed and ‘thick’
descriptions of the perspectival accounts of the six participants. Each participant was represented as an individual case, which allowed for in-depth description. Additionally, participants were assessed using common thematic categories established through the conceptual and theoretical framework. This allowed for a greater degree of consistency and cross-comparative analysis across the participants.
The issues of dependability and confirmability related to the quantitative notion of reliability.
Reliability relates to dependability, consistency and replicability over time, over instruments and over groups of respondents (Cohen et al., 2011). Hence, inherent in issues of reliability is how accurately a study can be replicated to produce similar results or findings. However, in the context of this qualitative study framed within a critical paradigm, the possibilities of replicating exactly social contexts and data are extremely difficult. However, reliability through dependability and confirmability were possible through the rigour in the documents analysis, recording and transcriptions of the data. The authenticity of the data is also traceable through the documents used, as well as consent obtained from the participants regarding the interview participation.
Most analysts of qualitative data handle issues of trustworthiness by taking a reflexive stance where the subjectivity of the researcher will always be present and it is best openly to engage with it rather than to assume the unreachable posture of objectivity (Cousin, 2009). In this regard, it was necessary to declare any biases on the part of the researcher. As this study is steeped in a critical paradigm, the researcher cannot be precluded from advocacy toward sustainability marketing.
74
Specifically, in this study, the researcher holds a personal interest in the development of socially responsive marketing curricula, geared towards marketing sustainability, an advocacy that may or may not have influenced the opinions of the participants. This was explored in the final section of this chapter that addressed the limitations of this research study.