INTRODUCTION:

There has been considerable debate among methodologists about the value and legitimacy of this alternative set of standards for judging qualitative research. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to this counter argument. No one has yet done a thorough job of translating how the same criteria might apply in qualitative research contexts. For instance, the discussions of external validity have been dominated by the idea of statistical sampling as the basis for generalizing.

Considerations of reliability have traditionally been inextricably linked to the notion of true score theory. For instance, Guba and Lincoln proposed four criteria for judging the soundness of qualitative research and explicitly offered these as an alternative to more traditional quantitatively-oriented criteria. (William M.K. Trochim 2006).

LINCOLN AND GUBA’S FRAMEWORK:

CREDIBILITY:

The credibility criteria involve establishing that the results of qualitative research are credible or believable from the perspective of the participant in the research. Since from this perspective, the purpose of qualitative research is to describe or understand the phenomena of interest from the participant's eyes, the participants are the only ones who can legitimately judge the credibility of the results.

Techniques for Establishing Credibility:

Prolonged Engagement:

This involves spending adequate time observing various aspects of a setting, speaking with a range of people, and developing relationships and rapport with members of the culture. Development of rapport and trust facilitates understanding and co-construction of meaning between researcher and members of a setting. (Cohen D, Crabtree B. 2006).

Persistent Observation:

The purpose of persistent observation is to identify those characteristics and elements in the situation that are most relevant to the problem or issue being pursued and focusing on them in detail. If prolonged engagement provides scope, persistent observation provides depth. (Lincoln, YS. and Guba, EG.1985).

Triangulation:

Triangulation involves using multiple data sources in an investigation to produce understanding. Qualitative researchers generally use this technique to ensure that an account is rich, robust, comprehensive and well-developed. (Angen, MJ. 2000).

Peer debriefing:

It is a process of exposing oneself to a disinterested peer in a manner paralleling an analytical sessions and for the purpose of exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer's mind" (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

Negative or deviant case analysis:

This involves searching for and discussing elements of the data that do not support or appear to contradict patterns or explanations that are emerging from data analysis. Deviant case analysis is a process for refining an analysis until it can explain or account for a majority of cases. Analysis of deviant cases may revise, broaden and confirm the patterns emerging from data analysis. (Creswell, JW. 1998).

Referential adequacy:

This involves identifying a portion of data to be archived, but not analyzed. The researcher then conducts the data analysis on the remaining data and develops preliminary findings. The researcher then returns to this archived data and analyzes it as a way to test the validity of his or her findings. (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

Member-checking:

This is when data, analytic categories, interpretations and conclusions are tested with members of those groups from whom the data were originally obtained. It can be done both formally and informally as opportunities for member checks may arise during the normal course of observation and conversation. Typically, member checking is viewed as a technique for establishing to the validity of an account. (Angen, MJ. 2000).

TRANSFERABILITY:

Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings. From a qualitative perspective transferability is primarily the responsibility of the one doing the generalizing. The qualitative researcher can enhance transferability by doing a thorough job of describing the research context and the assumptions that were central to the research.

Techniques for Establishing Transferability:

Thick description:

Thick description refers to the detailed account of field experiences in which the researcher makes explicit the patterns of cultural and social relationships and puts them in context (Holloway, 1997).

DEPENDABILITY:

The idea of dependability on the other hand emphasizes the need for the researcher to account for the ever-changing context within which research occurs. The research is responsible for describing the changes that occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the study.

Techniques for Establishing Dependability:

Inquiry audit:

Inquiry audit involve having a researcher not involved in the research process examine both the process and product of the research study. The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy and evaluate whether or not the findings, interpretations and conclusions are supported by the data. (Creswell, JW. 1998)

CONFIRMABILITY:

Confirmability refers to the degree to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others. There are a number of strategies for enhancing confirmability. The researcher can document the procedures for checking and rechecking the data throughout the study and can actively search for and describe and negative instances that contradict prior observations. One can conduct a data audit that examines the data collection and analysis procedures and makes judgements about the potential for bias or distortion.

Techniques for Establishing Confirmability:

Confirmability audit:

Confirmability audits are conducted to foster the accuracy or validity of a research study. This audit provides an opportunity for an outsider to challenge the process and findings of a research study. (Miles, MB. and Huberman, AM. 1994).

Audit trail:

An audit trail is a transparent description of the research steps taken from the start of a research project to the development and reporting of findings. These are records that are kept regarding what was done in an investigation. (Schwandt, TA. Halpern, ES.1988).

Triangulation:

Triangulation is a method for corroborating findings and used as a test for validity. However this is controversial. This assumes that a weakness in one method will be compensated for by another method and that it is always possible to make sense between different accounts. (Angen, MJ. 2000).

Reflexivity:

Reflexivity is an attitude of attending systematically to the context of knowledge construction, especially to the effect of the researcher, at every step of the research process. A researcher's background and position will affect what they choose to investigate, the angle of investigation, the methods judged most adequate for this purpose, the findings considered most appropriate, and the framing and communication of conclusions (Malterud, 2001).

AUTHENTICITY:

Authenticity involves shifting away from concerns about the reliability and validity of research to concerns about research that is worthwhile and thinking about its impact on members of the culture or community being researched. Authenticity is as an important component of establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research and focuses on the degree to which researchers faithfully and fairly described participants' experiences. Distinctively within the naturalistic paradigm authenticity was added as fifth criterion.

REFERENCE:

1. William M.K. Trochim (2006) “Qualitative Validity” Research Methods Knowledge Base.

2. Cohen D, Crabtree B. (2006) "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project."

3. Lincoln, YS. and Guba, EG. (1985) “Naturalistic Inquiry” Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.

4. Angen, MJ. (2000) "Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue." Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.

5. Mays, N. and Pope, C. (2000) "Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research." BMJ. 320(7226), 50-52.

6. Patton, MQ. (1999) "Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis." HSR: Health Services Research. 34 (5) Part II. pp. 1189-1208.

7. Patton, MQ. (2001) “Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods” (2nd Edition). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

8. Creswell, JW. (1998) “Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions” Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

9. Holloway, I. (1997) “Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research” London: Blackwell Science.

10. Miles, MB. and Huberman, AM. (1994) “Qualitative Data Analysis” (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

11. Malterud, K. (2001) "Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines." The Lancet. 358: pp. 483-488.

12. Schwandt, TA. Halpern, ES. (1988) “Linking Auditing and Meta evaluation: Enhancing Quality in Applied Research” Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

13. Nalita James 2008 “Authenticity” The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods

Received on 06.11.2014 Modified on 15.11.2014

Int. J. Adv. Nur. Management 2(4): Oct. - Dec., 2014; Page 283-285