Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John W. Creswell
Dana L. Miller
Determining Validity
in Qualitative Inquiry
them (Schwandt, 1997). Procedures for validity the interpretations accurately represent them. A
include those strategies used by researchers to es- third lens may be the credibility of an account by
tablish the credibility of their study. Throughout individuals external to the study. Reviewers not
this discussion, we make the assumption that va- affiliated with the project may help establish va-
lidity refers not to the data but to the inferences lidity as well as various readers for whom the ac-
drawn from them (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). count is written.
125
THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Summer 2000
Getting Good Qualitative Data
toward reality. The validity procedures reflected 522). To this end, researchers engage in validity pro-
in this thinking present criteria with labels distinct cedures of self-disclosure and collaboration with
from quantitative approaches, such as trustworthi- participants in a study. These procedures help to
ness (i.e., credibility, transferability, dependability, minimize further the inequality that participants
and confirmability), and authenticity (i.e., fairness, often feel. For example, Carspecken’s Critical Eth-
enlarges personal constructions, leads to improved nography in Educational Research (1996) reports
understanding of constructions of others, stimulates validity procedures for tracking bias and interviews
action, and empowers action). The classical work with oneself as ways for researchers to be situated
by Lincoln and Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry (1985), in a study.
provides extensive discussions about these forms
of trustworthiness and authenticity. Validity Within Lens and Paradigms
A third paradigm assumption is the critical As shown in Table 1, we use the lens and
perspective. This perspective emerged during the paradigm assumptions to create a two-dimensional
1980s as the “crisis in representation” (Denzin & framework for locating nine different types of va-
Lincoln, 1994, p. 9). As a challenge and critique lidity procedures. The discussion now turns to these
of the modern state, the critical perspective holds nine procedures with a brief definition of each,
that researchers should uncover the hidden assump- their location within a lens and paradigm perspec-
tions about how narrative accounts are constructed, tive, and approaches for implementing each proce-
read, and interpreted. What governs our perspec- dure. This list is not exhaustive but includes those
tive about narratives is our historical situatedness procedures commonly used and cited in qualitative
of inquiry, a situatedness based on social, politi- literature.
cal, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender ante-
cedents of the studied situations. The implication Triangulation
for validity of this perspective is that validity is Triangulation is a validity procedure where
called into question, its assumptions interrogated researchers search for convergence among multi-
and challenged, and the researchers need to be re- ple and different sources of information to form
flexive and disclose what they bring to a narrative. themes or categories in a study. The term comes
Richardson (1994) uses the metaphor of a from military navigation at sea where sailors trian-
crystal as an image for validity: “Crystals are prisms gulated among different distant points to determine
that reflect externalities and refract within themselves. their ship’s bearing (Jick, 1979). Denzin (1978)
. . . What we see depends on our angle of repose” (p. identified four types of triangulation: across data
Table 1
Validity Procedures Within Qualitative Lens and Paradigm Assumptions
Lens of People Ex- The audit trail Thick, rich Peer debriefing
ternal to the Study description
(Reviewers,
Readers)
126
Creswell and Miller
Determining Validity
sources (i.e., participants), theories, methods (i.e., ing beliefs and biases early in the research process
interview, observations, documents), and among to allow readers to understand their positions, and
different investigators. then to bracket or suspend those researcher biases
As a validity procedure, triangulation is a step as the study proceeds. This validity procedure uses
taken by researchers employing only the research- the lens of the researcher but is clearly positioned
er’s lens, and it is a systematic process of sorting within the critical paradigm where individuals re-
through the data to find common themes or cate- flect on the social, cultural, and historical forces
gories by eliminating overlapping areas. A popular that shape their interpretation.
practice is for qualitative inquirers to provide cor- Researchers might use several options for in-
roborating evidence collected through multiple corporating this reflexivity into a narrative account.
methods, such as observations, interviews, and doc- They may create a separate section on the “role of
uments to locate major and minor themes. The nar- the researcher,” provide an epilogue, use interpre-
rative account is valid because researchers go tive commentary throughout the discussion of the
through this process and rely on multiple forms of findings, or bracket themselves out by describing
evidence rather than a single incident or data point personal experiences as used in phenomenological
in the study. methods (Moustakas, 1994).
127
THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Summer 2000
Getting Good Qualitative Data
of time. Fetterman (1989) contends that “working turning to individuals external to the project, such
with people day in and day out for long periods of as auditors—formally brought into the study—or
time is what gives ethnographic research its valid- readers who examine the narrative account and at-
ity and vitality” (p. 46). During repeated observa- test to its credibility. In establishing an audit trail,
tion, the researchers build trust with participants, researchers provide clear documentation of all re-
find gatekeepers to allow access to people and sites, search decisions and activities. They may provide
establish rapport so that participants are comfort- evidence of the audit trail throughout the account or
able disclosing information, and reciprocate by giv- in the appendices. Researchers may also use an ex-
ing back to people being studied. This lens is ternal auditor to review their study. The goal of a
focused on gaining a credible account by building formal audit is to examine both the process and prod-
a tight and holistic case. uct of the inquiry, and determine the trustworthi-
Being in the field over time solidifies evi- ness of the findings.
dence because researchers can check out the data Lincoln and Guba (1985) use the analogy of
and their hunches and compare interview data with a fiscal audit to describe this process. The audit is
observational data. It is not a process that is sys- often used in formal studies, such as in disserta-
tematically established, but constructivists recog- tions, particularly when committee members are
nize that the longer they stay in the field, the more trained quantitatively and may be skeptical about
the pluralistic perspectives will be heard from par- qualitative studies. Certain audiences appreciate the
ticipants and the better the understanding of the rigor of the audit process, and the lens for estab-
context of participant views. In practice, prolonged lishing credibility becomes someone external to the
engagement in the field has no set duration, but project. It is a systematic procedure in that the
ethnographers, for example, spend from 4 months reviewer writes an analysis after carefully study-
to a year at a site. ing the documentation provided by the researcher.
An audit trail is established by researchers
Collaboration documenting the inquiry process through journal-
Credible data also come from close collabo- ing and memoing, keeping a research log of all
ration with participants throughout the process of activities, developing a data collection chronolo-
research. Collaboration means that the participants gy, and recording data analysis procedures clearly.
are involved in the study as co-researchers or in The external auditor examines this documentation
less formal arrangements. This validity lens is one with the following questions in mind: Are the find-
of building the participant’s view into the study. It ings grounded in the data? Are inferences logical?
belongs to a critical paradigm perspective because Is the category structure appropriate? Can inquiry
the intent of the process is to respect and support decisions and methodological shifts be justified?
participants in a study, not further marginalize What is the degree of researcher bias? What strate-
them. gies were used for increasing credibility? (Schwandt
In practice, collaboration may assume multi- & Halpern, 1988). Through this process of docu-
ple forms. For example, participants may help form menting a study and a review of the documenta-
the research questions, assist with data collection tion by an external auditor, the narrative account
and analysis, and be involved in writing the narra- becomes credible.
tive account. Some qualitative researchers may
share the profits, such as book royalties or co-au- Thick, rich description
thorship publication rights. By actively involving Another procedure for establishing credibility
participants in their studies, qualitative inquirers in a study is to describe the setting, the participants,
add further credibility to their narrative accounts. and the themes of a qualitative study in rich detail.
According to Denzin (1989), “thick descriptions are
The audit trail deep, dense, detailed accounts. . . . Thin descriptions,
Now the lens for establishing validity shifts by contrast, lack detail, and simply report facts” (p.
again. The credibility of a study is established by 83). The purpose of a thick description is that it
128
Creswell and Miller
Determining Validity
creates verisimilitude, statements that produce for herent in the study design, such as triangulation of
the readers the feeling that they have experienced, methods, prolonged observations in the field, and
or could experience, the events being described in the use of thick, rich descriptions. In deciding to
a study. Thus, credibility is established through use a formal audit or peer debriefer, researchers
the lens of readers who read a narrative account should consider their audiences, the availability of
and are transported into a setting or situation. such individuals, and the expense of using them.
To use this procedure for establishing credi- Member checking is always important as well as
bility, researchers employ a constructivist perspec- keeping research logs to document the rigor of our
tive to contextualize the people or sites studied. research processes. When faced with students or
The process of writing using thick description is faculty committees that seek rigor and a systemat-
to provide as much detail as possible. It may in- ic review of procedures, the process of establish-
volve describing a small slice of interaction, expe- ing a clear audit trail is most important.
rience, or action; locating individuals in specific As we review the nine validity procedures,
situations; bringing a relationship or an interaction we acknowledge the importance of all three lenses
alive between two or more persons; or providing a and that their emphasis in a study will vary de-
detailed rendering of how people feel (Denzin, pending on the project, the audience for whom we
1989). are writing, and the people available to provide an
With this vivid detail, the researchers help assessment of our project. Our primary lens, how-
readers understand that the account is credible. Rich ever, is always that of the participants in a study,
description also enables readers to make decisions and we have become more reflexive in our studies,
about the applicability of the findings to other set- acknowledging the inseparableness of the research-
tings or similar contexts. er and the process of inquiry.
As for our paradigm stances, we most close-
Peer debriefing ly align ourselves with the use of systematic pro-
A peer review or debriefing is the review of cedures, employing rigorous standards and clearly
the data and research process by someone who is identified procedures (e.g., Creswell, 1998). How-
familiar with the research or the phenomenon be- ever, we also resonate with the critical perspective
ing explored. A peer reviewer provides support, and engage in collaborative research practices that
plays devil’s advocate, challenges the researchers’ are respectful of the individuals we study (e.g.,
assumptions, pushes the researchers to the next step Miller, Creswell, & Olander, 1998). What is most
methodologically, and asks hard questions about important is that the credibility of the account be
methods and interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, conveyed in a qualitative study. We suggest that
1985). the use of validity procedures requires thinking
The lens for establishing credibility is some- beyond specific procedures—to acknowledge the
one external to the study, and a critical paradigm lens being employed in a study and the paradigm
is operating because of the close collaboration be- assumptions of the researchers.
tween the external reviewer and the qualitative re-
searcher. This procedure is best used over time References
during the process of an entire study. Peer debrief- Altheide, D.L., & Johnson, J.M. (1994). Criteria for
ers can provide written feedback to researchers or assessing interpretive validity in qualitative re-
simply serve as a sounding board for ideas. By search. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485-499).
seeking the assistance of peer debriefers, research- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ers add credibility to a study. American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on
Positioning Ourselves Measurement in Education. (1982). Standards for ed-
ucational and psychological testing. Washington,
Our approach is to use several validity pro- DC: American Educational Research Association.
cedures in our studies. Certainly some strategies Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental
are easier to use than others, particularly those in- and quasi-experimental designs for research. In
129
THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Summer 2000
Getting Good Qualitative Data
N.L. Gage, Handbook of research on teaching (pp. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststruc-
1-76). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. turalism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673-693.
Carspecken, P.F. (1996). Critical ethnography in edu- Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
cational research: A theoretical and practical Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
guide. New York: Routledge. Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qual-
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research itative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62,
design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand 279-300.
Oaks, CA: Sage. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
orientation to sociological methods (2 nd ed.). New Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study
York: McGraw-Hill. applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, N.K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. New- Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data
bury Park, CA: Sage. analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). New-
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Introduction: En- bury Park, CA: Sage.
tering the field of qualitative research. In N.K. Den- Miller, D.L., Creswell, J. W., & Olander, L.S. (1998).
Writing and retelling multiple ethnographic tales of
zin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
a soup kitchen for the homeless. Qualitative Inquiry,
research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4, 469-491.
Donmoyer, R. (1996). Educational research in an era Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research meth-
of paradigm proliferation: What’s a journal editor ods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
to do? Educational Researcher, 25(2), 19-25. Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods.
Fetterman, D.M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
(Applied Social Research Methods Series, No. 17). Ratcliffe, J.W. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. research methodology. Knowledge: Creation, Diffu-
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing para- sion, Utilization, 5(2), 147-167.
digms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative re- N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qual-
search (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. itative research (pp. 516-529). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnogra- Sage.
phy: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). New York: Schwandt, T.A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary
Routledge. of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative Schwandt, T.A., & Halpern, E.S. (1988). Linking audit-
methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Sci- ing and metaevaluation: Enhancing quality in ap-
ence Quarterly, 24, 602-611. plied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
130