VALIDITY IN QUALI

(Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle,

2001; Yardley, 2008; Willig, 2003)
 Historical Dev’t of Validity Issues
• Quanti vs. Quali? (tensions from without)
• Epistemological Purism vs. Pluralism? (tensions
from within)
• Rigor vs. Creativity? (tensions with “process”)
– Guard against methodolatry and uncritical
hodgepodge

**Honing Critical Attitude not Criticizing Stance

Two types of approach to qualitative research
(Reicher, 2000)

Experiential Discursive

Understanding Concerned with

of people’s the role of
experiences, language in the
ways of thinking construction of
and actions reality
Three approaches to qualitative research
(Madill et al., 2000)

Realist Contextual Radical

Constructionist Constructionist
Research Research
represents constructs
“reality” “reality” (a
(a process of discursive
discovery) process)
 Thinking about Validity
• Validity is not an inherent property of a
particular method, but pertains to the data,
accounts, or conclusions reached by using that
method in a particular context for a particular
purpose” (Maxwell, 1992; p. 284). Methods
become a means to garner evidence
supportive of validity (Maxwell, 1996).
VALIDITY IN QUANTI
• objectivity
• reliability
• (statistical) generalizability
• researcher = “error” in quanti
• research inevitably influences research in
quali
OBJECTIVITY?
• minimize researcher influence or bias (“error)
vs. maximize benefits of engaging actively with
participants
RELIABILITY?
• develop reliable measures so findings can be
replicated vs. elicit complex, contradictory
(“unreliable”) responses in different contexts
GENERALIZABILITY?
• generalize from sample to population (holds
for majority of people) vs. generalize through
patterns or theory (holds for similar contexts)
VALIDITY IN QUALI
• “Evocative, true to life, and meaningful portraits,
stories, and landscapes of human experience”
(Sandelowski, 1993, p. 1) constitute the essence of
qualitative research
• Primary Criteria
– Credibility and authenticity?
– Criticality and Integrity?
• Secondary Criteria
– Explicitness, creativity, vividness, thoroughness, and
congruence?
– Is it useful? Practitioners?
Data analysis
 
Step 4: Identify themes during the coding process.

Step 5: Advance how the description and themes will be

presented in the narrative.

Step 6: Interpret or make meaning of the data.

Data analysis for quali is an ongoing process involving

continual reflection about the data, asking analytic
questions, and writing memos throughout the study (not
sharply divided steps or processes).
Quality in qualitative research (Henwood
and Pidgeon, 1992)

1. the importance of fit

2. integration of theory
3. reflexivity
4. documentation
5. theoretical sampling & negative case analysis
6. sensitivity to negotiated realities
7. transferability
Quality in qualitative research
(Elliot et al. 1999)

1. owning one’s perspective

2. situating the sample
3. grounding in examples
4. providing credibility checks
5. coherence
6. accomplishing general vs specific research
tasks
7. resonating with readers
Validity and qualitative psychology
(Yardley, 2000)

1. sensitivity to context (sensitive to the

literature, to the method, to the data, to the
socio-cultural situation, to the relationship
between researcher & participant)
2. commitment, rigor, transparency, & coherence
(degree of engagement, thoroughness, clarity
and detail, logic in arguments)
3. impact & importance (says something useful
and makes a difference)
Reliability (e.g., inter-rater) and generalizability
(e.g., multiple cases) play a minor role in quali.

Validity is the strength of quali but it means

accuracy of the findings from the standpoint of
the researcher, the participant, or the readers of
an account.

Validity is equated with trustworthiness,

authenticity, and credibility.
Strategies for checking accuracy (Creswell,
2009)
•Triangulate data sources.
•Check back with participants.
•Use rich, thick descriptions (to make reader share the
experience).
•Clarify researcher’s biases & reflections.
•Present negative information that runs counter to
themes.
•Spend prolonged time in the field to gain in-depth
understanding of the phenomenon.
•Ask a person to review and ask questions about the
study.
•Ask an external person to review the entire project.
 DEMONSTRATING VALIDITY IN QUALI RESEARCH

• core principles for evaluating validity of quali

research (Yardley, 2000)
• [1] sensitivity to context
• [2] commitment and rigour
• [3] coherence and transparency
• [4] impact and importance
 DEMONSTRATING VALIDITY IN QUALI RESEARCH

• [1] sensitivity to context – relevant theoretical

and empirical literature; socio-cultural setting;
participants’ perspectives

• [2] commitment and rigour – thorough data

collection; depth/breadth of analysis;
methodological competence/skill; in-depth
engagement with topic
 DEMONSTRATING VALIDITY IN QUALI RESEARCH

• [3] coherence and transparency – clarity and

power of your argument; fit between theory
and method; transparent methods and data
presentation; reflexivity
•  
• [4] impact and importance –
practical/applied; theoretical; socio-cultural
 PROCEDURES FOR ENHANCING VALIDITY IN QUALI RESEARCH

• a toolbox to improve the depth, breadth, &

sensitivity of your analysis (Barbour, 2001)
• [1] triangulation
• [2] comparing researchers’ coding
• [3] participant feedback
• [4] disconfirming case analysis
• [5] a paper trail
 PROCEDURES FOR ENHANCING VALIDITY IN QUALI RESEARCH

• [1] triangulation – not to corroborate

accounts but to enrich understanding of
phenomenon by viewing it from different
perspectives
• [2] comparing researchers’ coding – coding by
2 or more researchers to make sure that
analysis makes sense to other people
 PROCEDURES FOR ENHANCING VALIDITY IN QUALI RESEARCH

• [3] participant feedback – respondent

validation (if suitable to theory & method)
• [4] disconfirming case analysis – seeking
“deviant cases” or “negative cases” to test
emerging theory by identifying data that do
not fit themes or patterns
• [5] a paper trail – provide evidence linking raw
data to final report by documenting each step
of the research process
Reflexivity
 
acknowledging subjectivity

🞂qualitative methodologies differ in the

emphasis on reflexivity and the importance of
language

🞂requires an awareness of the researcher’s

contribution to the construction of meanings
throughout the research process
 Know the “Place” of Hugot: Reflexivity
• defined as thoughtful, conscious self-
awareness (dialectical turn)
• the turning back of one’s social experience on
oneself—central to becoming a person (Mead)
• humans to be reflexive agents and on how
through reflecting on our own history (as
individuals and as members of larger societies)
we can change the course of history
(Habermas)
Reflexivity
 
🞂personal reflexivity – how our own values,
experiences, beliefs, politics, and identities
shape the research

🞂epistemological reflexivity – how the research

question defined and limited what can be
“found”? how the design and method
“constructed” the data and findings?
Reflexivity
 
🞂critical language awareness as reflexivity –
how the words we use play a part in the
construction of meanings (words researchers
use will shape their “findings”)
 A NOTE ON DOGMA

• guidelines for good QUALI research should not

be used as a set of rigid rules
• QUALI research relies on the capacity to evoke
imaginative experience and reveal new
meanings (Eisner, 2003)
• QUALI research is evolving; hence, be flexible,
be creative