Analytic memos:
Creswell (2007)- Chapter 10 (Standards of Validation and Evaluation)
The following quotations are related with validation and reliability in qualitative research:
1. Validation:
- Validation also has been reconceptualized by qualitative researchers with a postmodern sensibility. Lather (1991) commented that current “paradigmatic uncertainty in the human sciences is leading to the re-conceptualizing of validation” and called for “new techniques and concepts for obtaining and defining trustworthy data which avoids the pitfalls of orthodox notions of validation” (p. 66). – p. 204
- Validation has also been cast within an interpretive approach to qualitative research marked by a focus on the importance of the researcher, a lack of truth in validation, a form of validation based on negotiation and dialogue with participants, and interpretations that are temporal, located, and always open to reinterpretation (Angen, 2000). Angen (2000) suggested that within interpretative research, validation is “a judgment of the trustworthiness or goodness of a piece of research” (p. 387).
- She espouses an ongoing pen dialogue on the topic of what makes interpretive research worthy of our trust. Considerations of validation are not definitive as the final word on the topic, nor should every study be required to address them. Further, she advances two types of validation: ethical validation and substantive validation.
- Ethical validation means that all research agendas must questions their underlying moral assumptions, their political and ethical implications, and the equitable treatment of diverse voices. It also requires research to provide some practical answers to questions. Our research should also have a “generative promise” (Angen, 2000, p. 389) and raise new possibilities, open up new questions, and stimulate new dialogue. – p. 205
- I consider “validation” in qualitative research to be an attempt to assess the “accuracy” of the findings, as best described by the researcher and the participants. This view also suggests that any report of research is a representation by the author. –pp. 206-207
- I also view validation as a distinct strength of qualitative research in that the account made through extensive time spent in the field, the detailed thick description, and the closeness of the researcher to participants in the study all add to the value or accuracy of a study. (p. 207)
- At best, there might be less emphasis on validation in narrative research and more emphasis on it in grounded theory, case study, and ethnography, especially when the authors talking about these approaches want to employ systematic procedures. I would recommend using validation strategies regardless of type of qualitative approach. (p. 207)
2. Substantive validation
- Substantive validation means understanding one’s own understandings of the topic, understandings derived from other sources, and the documentation of this process in the written study. Self-reflection contributes to the validation of the work. The researcher, as a sociohistorical interpreter, interacts with the subject manner to co-create the interpretations derived. Understandings derived from previous research give substance to the inquiry. –p. 206
3. Suggestions of Validation Strategies from Creswell & Miller, 2000 (p. 207)
- Peer review or debriefing provides an external check of the research process (Ely et al., 1991; Erlandson et al., 1993; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lmcoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988), much in the same spirit as interrater reliability in quantitative research. Lincoln and Guba (1985) define the role of the peer debriefer as a “devil’s advocate,” an individual who keeps the researcher honest; asks hard questions about methods, meanings, and interpretations; and provides the researcher with the opportunity for catharsis by sympathetically listening to the researcher’s feelings. This reviewer may be a peer, and both the peer and the researcher keep written accounts of the sessions, called “peer debriefing sessions” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). – p. 208
- Rich, thick description allows readers to make decisions regarding transferability (Erlandson et aI., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988) because the writer describes in detail the participants or setting under study. With such detailed description, the researcher enables readers to transfer information to other settings and to determine whether the findings can be transferred “because of shared characteristics” (Erlandson et al., 993, p. 3).- p. 209
Methodological Memos:
1. Phenomenological Research (pp. 215-216)
- My own standards that I would use to assess the quality of a phenomenology would be:
· Does the author convey an understanding of the philosophical tenets of phenomenology ?
· Does the author have a clear “phenomenon” to study that is articulated in a concise way? Does the author use procedures of data analysis in phenomenology, such as the procedures recommended by Moustakas (1994)?
· · Does the author convey the overall essence of the experience of the participants? Does this essence include a description of the experience and the context in which it occurred?
· Is the author reflexive throughout the study?
2. Case Study Research (pp. 218-219)
- Stake (1995) provides a rather extensive “critique checklist” (p. 131” 31) L) for a case study report and shares 20 criteria for assessing a good case study report:
a. Is the report easy to read?
b. Does it fit together, each sentence contributing to the whole?
c. Does the report have a conceptual structure (i.e., themes or issues)
d. Are its issues developed in a serious and scholarly way?
e. Is the case adequately defined?
f. Is there a sense of story to the presentation?
g. Is the reader provided some vicarious experience?
h. Is the reader provided some vicarious experience
i. Are headings, figures, artifacts, appendixes, and indexes used effectively?
j. Was it edited well, then again with a last-minute polish?
k. Has the writer made sound assertions, neither over- nor under-interpreting?
l. Has adequate attention been paid to various contexts?
m. Were sufficient raw data presented?
n. Were data sources well chosen and in sufficient number?
o. Do observations and interpretations appear to have been triangulated? Is the role and point of view of the researcher nicely apparent?
p. Is the nature of the intended audience apparent? Empathy shown for all sides? Personal intentions examined?
q. Does it appear that individuals were put at risk? (Stake, 1995,p.131)
3. My own criteria for evaluating a “good” case study would include the following:
· Is there a clear identification of the “case” or “case;” in the study?
· Is the “case” (or are the “cases”) used to understand a research issue or used because the ‘case” has (or “cases” have) intrinsic merit?
· Is there a clear description of the “case”? , Are themes identified for the “case”?
· Are assertions or generalizations made from the “case” analysis?
· Is the researcher reflexive or self-disclosing about his or her position in the study?
No comments:
Post a Comment