Designing Qualitative Research

Answer

Designing Qualitative Research

For decades now, the quality of qualitative research has attracted significant interest and generated a hot debate, often depicting dispute. The scientific community yearns for the establishment of legitimacy of not only quantitative research but also qualitative research. In this respect, the contextual debate (which has been characterized by little agreement) has been about whether there exists a set of criteria upon which this type of research can be weighed and judged. Indeed, many scholars and commentators have made attempts to identify and explain such criteria, with some applying those that have traditionally been applicable to quantitative research. This paper explores reliability and validity in the manner they apply to qualitative research as quality criteria. It also looks at how they are tied to epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying philosophical orientations as well as the standards of research in social science.

Reliability and validity

In order that the concepts of reliability and validity are comprehended, it is imperative that the manner they have been defined by different research scholars is looked at. According to Twycross and Shields (2004), reliability refers to the consistency, stability, and repeatability of results. In other words, the results of a given research would be considered reliable if similar results can be obtained in similar situations even if circumstances are different. Qualitative research can be considered good if it helps the researcher “understand a situation that would otherwise be enigmatic or confusing” (Eisner, 1991). ‘Good’ in this respect relates to good quality. Thatcher (2010) defines validity as the extent to which a given research investigates what it is intended to investigate, more so as can be made possible by its instrumentation.  To what extent does a given instrument measure what it is intended to measure?  Stenbacka (2001) adds his voice to the current conversation by asserting that in its simplest, reliability is a concept that evaluates the quality of research. In quantitative research its purpose is to explain while in qualitative research the main purpose is to generate understanding (Stenbacka, 2001). Notably, there is a possibility that a measurement is reliable but lacks validity but the converse cannot be possible (Twycross, & Shields, 2004; Thatcher, 2010).

Patton (2001) argues that reliability and validity are factors that should be of interest to any qualitative investigator. Attention should be paid to these factors in all stages of research including design, instrumentation and data collection, results analysis, and quality judgment.  In this respect, Lincoln and Guba (1985) pose the question: “How can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to?” An answer (to this question) is given by Healy and Perry (2000) who state that quality of research in a given paradigm ought to be judged by the terms of that paradigm. For instance, while the concepts of validity and reliability are essential quality criteria in quantitative (mostly positivist) paradigms, the notions of credibility, confirmability, neutrality, applicability, dependability, transferability, and consistency are considered essential quality criteria in qualitative research (Lincoln, & Guba, 1985). As concerns reliability in the context of qualitative research, the term “dependability” is mostly used as the equivalent of “reliability” in the context of quantitative research. The idea of an inquiry audit is further emphasized as a means of enhancing this dependability (Lincoln, & Guba, 1985). Thus, the measure as yielded by an inquiry audit makes it possible to examine research processes and products for consistency (Clont, 1992; Hoepfl, 1997). Data consistency is achieved with the verification of different research steps through examination of raw data and process notes among other items.

For reliability to be ensured/achieved, it is imperative to examine trustworthiness. According to Seale (1999), a research report’s trustworthiness is at the center of “issues conventionally discussed as validity and reliability”. It is indeed important to redefine the usual tenets of ‘good science’ so that they conform to qualitative research realities, if any qualitative work is to be effectively judged and/or tested.

As to how the discussed quality criteria are tied to contextual epistemological or paradigmactic assumptions, note should be taken that quality is sought through different approaches depending on the research design adopted. Kuhn has put forth a detailed account of what natural science entails and explained that it is, at best, pre-paradigmatic. While many objections have been raised against this account, there has been consensus to take caution not to adopt a too cognitivist conception of different research approaches. Researchers do not first acquire ontological and epistemological assumptions then make up their minds on how they should go about investigating the social world. On the contrary, they first acquire philosophical and methodological assumptions and research practices both unconsciously and consciously. In this regard, the differences that can be noted among researchers in qualitative research are embedded in the different modes of situated practice, which influence the researchers’ manner of thinking of and conceptualizing the research process. Importantly, as opposed to the challenge being the presence of too many clearly defined qualitative approaches, researchers are compounded by a complex landscape of what would be precisely termed as variable practice concerning which different labels (such as narrative study, interpretivism, postmodernism, discourse analysis, and ethnography) are given. Irrespective of which label a qualitative researcher identifies with, value-relevance is crucial and different value perspectives arise. These value perspectives are adopted in going about investigation and this value aspect is the current criteria’s connection to epistemological underpinnings.

One potential ethical issue is the need to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. This could influence design decision in terms of instrumentation where instruments have to be designed in such a manner that the participants are not required to state their name or have their identity revealed whatsoever. Last yet important in this paper is the concept of a research topic being amenable to scientific study using a qualitative approach. Such a topic is one whose contextual issues and variables are scientifically observable and can be exhaustively explored using a qualitative approach, perhaps without leaving gaps that would need to be filled by a quantitative inquiry.