Creswell, J. W., Miller, D. L., Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2010). in Qualitative Inquiry, (February 2014), 37–41. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903
Reading notes:
The term and definition of validity was elaborated. For qualitative research at least it is agreed that studies should be “credible” with which common procedures were identified, checking, triangulation, thick description, peer reviews and external audits etc. However the selection among these procedures against each other is not well differentiated. In this paper, two perspectives are suggested to guide the choice of procedures.
A two-dimensional framework as a rationale for choice of a procedure based on
- who assessses the credibility of a study, and (so it’s about standard & requirement to fulfill?)
- one’s own philosophical positions towary qualitative inquiry (so this is an approach with self perceived, reflected and justified rationale and reasons for the research and its methods? It gives space for an individual to discuss and share about the self-constructed realities.)
Thus the author assumed that validity refers not to the data but the inferences they drawn (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983).
A comparison made regarding lens used by researchers
- Quantitative: inferences made from test scores on psychometric instruments (construct, criterion, and content validity of interpretation of scores) (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1982)
- Qualitative: a lens established using the views of people who conduct, participate in, or read and review a study. It is a “validity-as-reflexive-accounting” approach as Altheide and Johnson (1994) described as where researchers, the topic and the sense-making process interact.
Overview of three paradigm assumptions.
Postpostivist – rigorous methods, systematic forms of inquiry; recognize and support validity, look for quantitative equivalence of it, and actively employ procedures for establishing validity using specific protocols.
Constructivist or interpretive – believe in pluralistic, interpretive, open-ended, and contextualized (e.g., sensitive to place and situation) perspectives toward reality. Criteria or qualities embraced such as as trustworthiness (i.e., credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability), and authenticity (i.e., fairness, enlarges personal constructions, leads to improved understanding of constructions of others, stimulates action, and empowers action).
Critical perspective – researchers should uncover the hidden assumptions about how narrative accounts are constructed, read, and interpreted. What governs our perspective about narratives is our historical situatedness of inquiry, a situatedness based on social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender antecedents of the studied situations. The implication for validity of this perspective is that validity is called into question, its assumptions interrogated and challenged, and the researchers need to be reflexive and disclose what they bring to a narrative.
9 types of validity procedures were tabled and mapped with respective paradigms taking the lens of researcher, study participants and people external to the study.
- Triangulation
Member checking
The audit trail - Disconfirming Researcher
Prolonged engagement in the field
Thick, rich description - Researcher reflexivity
Collaboration
Peer debriefing
So finally it is about how we position ourselves with our research study. We may consider the ease of use but also the target audiences, availability and access of the resources and sources, and expenses of using the procedures. More importantly as the authors mentioned we as inquirers should become more reflexive in our studies, understanding the existence and relationship of researcher and the process of inquiry etc.
Thus the search for validity should work beyond the use of validity procedures but the meta-cognitive knowledge of oneself, his/her roles in the research and relationship with the ones involved in the research, and the choice of procedures and the beliefs behind.
Dear Amia EdD 