Write an explanation of two criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research designs.
Typically, when speaking of validity, qualitative researchers are referring to research that is credible and trustworthy, i.e., the extent to which one can have confidence in the study’s findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Generalizability, a marker of reliability, is typically not a main purpose of qualitative research because the researcher rarely selects a random sample with a goal to generalize to a population or to other settings and groups. Rather, a qualitative researcher’s goal is often to understand a unique event or a purposively selected group of individuals. Therefore, when speaking of reliability, qualitative researchers are typically referring to research that is consistent or dependable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), i.e., the extent to which the findings of the study are consistent with the data that was collected.
References
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
For this Discussion, you will explain criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and consider the connection of such criteria to philosophical orientations. You will also consider the ethical implications of designing qualitative research.
With these thoughts in mind:
Write an explanation of two criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research designs. Next, explain how these criteria are tied to epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying philosophical orientations and the standards of your discipline (Healthcare Science). Then, identify a potential ethical issue in qualitative research and explain how it might influence design decisions. Finally, explain what it means for a research topic to be amenable to scientific study using a qualitative approach.
Explain in 1-2 pages. Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.
Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 3
Trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
Trustworthiness is 1. The extent to which one can have confidence in the study’s findings 2. Parallel of reliability, validity, and objectivity in traditional “quantitative”
research Trustworthiness Criteria Credibility
Findings and interpretations are plausible to the “researched” (the participants) Do findings accurately reflect reality as seen by participants?
Transferability
Applicability of findings based on comparability of contexts Are conditions similar enough to make findings applicable?
Dependability
Account for factors of instability and change within the natural context Document naturally occurring phenomena (stability and change)
Confirmability
Capacity to authenticate the internal coherence of data, findings, interpretations, and recommendations Document “researcher as instrument” and potential sources of bias
Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 3
Insuring Trustworthiness Action Description Insures Prolonged engagement
Investing sufficient time to learn the culture, build trust with stakeholders, understand the scope of target phenomena, and test for misinformation/misinterpretation due to distortion by the researcher or informant
Credibility (internal validity)
Persistent observation
Continuing data collection process to permit identification and assessment of salient factors, and investigation in sufficient detail to separate relevant (typical) from irrelevant (atypical)
Credibility (internal validity)
Triangulation
Data collection and analysis interpretation based on multiple sources, methods, investigators, and theories
Credibility (internal validity)
Peer debriefing
Engage in analytic discussions with neutral peer (e.g., colleague not involved in the project)
Credibility (internal validity)
Member checks
Test veracity of the data, analytic categories (e.g., codes), interpretations, and conclusions with stakeholders to ensure accurate representation of emic perspectives
Credibility (internal validity)
Thick description
Describe procedures, context, and participants in sufficient detail to permit judgment by others of the similarity to potential application sites; specify minimum elements necessary to “recreate” findings
Transferability (external validity)
Audit trail
Records that include raw data; documentation of process and products of data reduction, analysis, and synthesis; methodological process notes; reflexive notes; and instrument development/piloting techniques
Dependability Confirmability (reliability and objectivity)
Negative case analysis
Investigate “disconfirming” instance or outlier; continue investigation until all known cases are accounted for so that data reflects range of variation (vs. normative portrayal)
Credibility (internal validity)
Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 3
Action Description Insures Reflexive journal
Researcher’s personal notes; documentation of researcher’s thinking throughout the research process
Credibility (internal validity) Transferability (external validity) Dependability Confirmability (reliability and objectivity)
Referential adequacy
Archiving of a portion of the raw data for subsequent analysis and interpretation, for verification of initial findings and conclusions
Credibility (internal validity)
References Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
- Trustworthiness
- Trustworthiness is
- Trustworthiness Criteria
- Insuring Trustworthiness
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
