Standards of Validation

and Evaluation (Chapter 10)

MGT E 500 FIVE QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO INQUIRY

Prepared by:
Leonysa T. Bacor
UV MSME 1 - 2nd Trimester

Submitted to:
Dr. Gregorio Pajaron
Agenda
01 Validation and Reliability in Qualitative Research
Perspectives on Validation, Validation Strategies,
Reliability Perspectives

02 Evaluation Criteria
Methodological Perspective, Postmodern,
Interpretive Framework Forms

03 Comparing the Evaluation

Standards of the Five Approaches
Qualitative Perspectives, Narrative Research, Phenomenolog-
04 ical Research, Grounded Theory Research, Ethnographic Re-
search, Case Study Research
Perspectives on Validation
 Validation Strategies
 Prolonged engagement and
persistent observation in the
field include building trust with
participants, learning the cul-
ture, and checking for misin-
formation that stems from dis-
tortions introduced by the re-
searcher or informants
 In negative case analysis, the
researcher refines working hy-
potheses as the inquiry ad-
vances
 In triangulation, researchers
make use of multiple and dif-
ferent sources, methods, in-
vestigators, and theories to
A B provide corroborating evi-
dence
 Peer review or debriefing
C D
provides an external check of
the research process
 Validation Strategies
 Clarifying researcher bias from
the outset of the study is im-
portant so that the reader un-
derstands the researcher's po-
sition and any biases or as-
sumptions that impact the in-
quiry (Merriam, 1988)
 Rich, thick description allows
readers to make decisions re-
garding transferability (Er-
landson et al., 1993)
 External audits allow an ex-
ternal consultant, the auditor,
to examine both the process
and the product of the ac-
count, assessing their accu-
racy (Erlandson et al., 1993;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mer-
riam, 1988; Miles & Huber-
E H man, 1994)
F  In member checking, the re-
G searcher solicits participants'
views of the credibility of the
findings and interpretations
(Ely et al., 1991)
 Reliability Perspectives

Reliability can be en- In qualitative re-

hanced if the re- search,
searcher obtains de- "reliability" often
tailed field notes by
05refers to the stability
employing a good-qual- of responses to multi-
ity tape for recording ple coders of data
and by 06sets.
transcribing the tape.
Evaluation Criteria

01 Methodological Perspective

Postmodern, Interpretive
02 Framework Forms
 Methodological Perspective (Eisenhardt, 1990)
suggests that five standards be applied to all research

examine the extent to which

the data collection and anal- wonder whether
ysis techniques are compe- the study has
tently applied in a technical overall warrant
sense

1 2 3 4 5
assess a study in ask whether the researcher's study must have
terms of whether assumptions are made explicit, "value" both in in-
the research ques- such as the researcher's own forming and improv-
tions subjectivity ing practice
Postmodern, Interpretive Framework Forms (Lincoln, 1995)
The new emerging approach to quality is based on three new commitments:

01 to emergent relations with respondents

02
01 to a set of stances

02
03 to a vision of research that enables and promotes justice
Eight Standards Based on Commitments (Lincoln, 1995)

The standard set in the inquiry community The standard of positionality guides

The standard on rubric community. Alternative or Multiple Voices

Critical subjectivity Intense sharing, trust and mutuality

Respect the collaborative and egalitarian

Sharing of privileges and rewards
aspects of research
 Four Criteria on Interpretive Standards
Richardson and St. Pierre, 2005

SUBSTANTIVE
REFLEXIVITY
CONTRIBUTION

AESTHETIC MERIT IMPACT

How are the standard of
evaluation connected to
the five approaches of
qualitative inquiry?
 GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH
Criteria Related to The General Research Process:
How are the
Criterion #1: How was the original sample selected? What grounds? standard of
Criterion #2: What major categories emerged?
Criterion #3: What were some of the events, incidents, actions, and other indi- evaluation
cators that pointed to some of these major categories?
Criterion #4: On the basis of what categories di(i theoretical sampling pro-
connected
ceed? to the five
Guide data collection? Was it representative of the categories?
Criterion #5: What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual rela- approaches
tions, and on what grounds were they formulated and tested?
Criterion #6: Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against of qualita-
what was actually seen? How were these discrepancies accounted for?
How did they affect the hypotheses?
tive in-
Criterion #7: How and why was the core category selected (sudden, gradual, quiry?
difficult, easy)? On what grounds? (p. 253)
 ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
Spindler and Spindler's nine criteria for a "good ethnography":

Criterion I. Observations are contextualized.

How are the
Criterion II. Hypotheses emerge in situ as the study goes on. standard of
Criterion III. Observation is prolonged and repetitive.
Criterion IV. Through interviews, observations, and other eliciting procedures, evaluation
the native view of reality is obtained.
Criterion V. Ethnographers elicit knowledge from informant-participants in a connected
systematic fashion.
Criterion VI. Instruments, codes, schedules, questionnaires, agenda for inter-
to the five
views, and so forth are generated in situ as a result of inquiry. approaches
Criterion VII. A transcultural, comparative perspective is frequently an unstated
assumption. of qualita-
Criterion VIII. The ethnographer makes explicit what is implicit and tacit to
informants.
tive in-
Criterion IX. The ethnographic interviewer must not predetermine responses quiry?
by
the kinds of questions asked. (Spindler & Spindler, 1987, p. 18)
 CASE STUDY RESEARCH
20 criteria for assessing a good case study report:

1. Is the report easy to read? How are the

2. Does it f1t together, each sentence contributing to the whole?
3. Does the report have a conceptual structure (i.e., themes or issues)? standard of
4. Are its issues developed in a serious and scholarly way?
5. Is the case adequately defined? evaluation
6. Is there a sense of story to the presentation?
7. Is the reader provided some vicarious experience? connected
8. Have quotations been used effectively?
9. Are headings, figures, artifacts, appendixes, and indexes used effectively? to the five
10. Was it edited well, then again with a last-minute polish?
11. Has the writer made sound assertions, neither overw nor under-interpreting? approaches
12. _Has adequate attention been paid to various contexts?
13. Were.sufficient raw data presented? of qualita-
14. Were data sources well chosen and in sufficient number?
15. Do observations and interpretations appear to have been triangulated? tive in-
16. Is the role and point of view of the researcher nicely apparent?
17. Is the nature of the intended audience apparent? quiry?
18. Is empathy shown for all sides?
19. Are personal intentions examined?
20. Does it appear that individuals were put at risk? (Stake, 1995, p. 131)
 NARRATIVE RESEARCH PHENOMENOLOGICAL
RESEARCH How are the
• How to locate and interpret • Does the general structural standard of
the subject in biographical description provide an ac-
materials? (Denzin, 1989) curate portrait of the com- evaluation
mon features and structural connected
connections that are mani- to the five
fest in the examples col-
lected? (Polkinghorne, approaches
1989, p.57) of qualita-
tive in-
quiry?
Thank you
for listening!