The evaluation criteria that apply to my study include triangulation, reflexivity, transferability, the identification of change-making strategies, and peer reviews.
Triangulation ―can involve the use of multiple data sources, multiple investigators, multiple theoretical perspectives, multiple methods, or all of these. The central point of the procedure is to examine a conclusion from more than one vantage point‖ (Schwandt 2001: 257). To fulfill the criterion of triangulation, I verified findings through
comparison between data sources. My research has a stronger claim to validity if, when my conclusions are examined from more than one position, inferences from the data remain similar in different contexts (Denzin 1994). In this way, I and others can check the integrity of my inferences (Schwandt 2001).
I also employed reflexivity to strengthen my analysis and to increase the reliability of the findings that I presented.
The term reflexivity… refer[s] to the process of critical self-reflection on one‘s biases, theoretical predispositions, preferences, and so forth….[it] can also signal more than inspection of potential sources of bias and their control. It can point to the fact the inquirer is part of the setting, context, and social phenomenon he or she seeks to understand (Schwandt 2001: 224).
I was mindful and as open as possible throughout the whole research process, starting with the choices made with respect to the particular strategic case and participants, and continuing with the data gathering and the analysis that is presented. This helps me to address the possibility that I may impose a particular interpretation on the data in order to advance my own opinions and beliefs or side with particular informants‘ beliefs.
Reflecting on the process assists me in remaining critically self-aware and open throughout the research. I purposefully attempted to address negative cases and
alternative explanations within my sample. I pay particular attention to these alternative explanations. Also, discussion with my supervisor and other advisory committee
members helped to ensure the minimization of bias through critical review of my methodology and reading of my thesis.
I have acknowledged my subjectivity and identified my biases to the best of my ability throughout the research process. In the write up of my research I acknowledge my personal beliefs and values that may influence aspects of the research. I have also
attempted to be transparent with my presentation of research findings as well as with the participants. They know of my story and how I came to this research. I have also
emphasized to them that there are no wrong answers.
Transferability, or external validity, refers to the generalizability of the research (Tobin and Begley 2004). In a case study method, the conclusions can be compared with another case. Although there may not be one single ―correct‖ interpretation of the results (Tobin and Begley 2004), other researchers and members of housing co-operative organizations can draw from the findings of this research and apply it to other situations.
This study is directed first and foremost towards individuals and groups in the co-operative housing sector who are interested in housing co-co-operatives as learning
organizations and as vehicles for more sustainable living. It will also be of interest to civil servants who are connected in some way to the co-operative housing sector, persons working in or interested in community development, and others who have a general
interest in these areas of inquiry. The broader purpose of my research is for the reader to be able to generalize from the learning experiences of one housing co-operative that is working towards sustainability and transfer and extend organizational learning literature to other settings.
The identification of potentially useful change-making strategies was one priority in this research and can also serve as measure of its relevance and success. This study draws out the ways that housing co-operatives can work as learning organizations in the context of creating and operating housing that is more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. The housing co-operative utilized as the case study, other housing co-operatives, and other housing communities may be able to use my study as a resource and to use it to make positive changes in their communities.17
Peer reviews were also used throughout the research and writing processes.
Merriam describes these as ―discussions with colleagues regarding the process of study, the congruency of emerging findings with the raw data, and tentative interpretations‖
(2002: 31). My supervisor and other advisory committee members repeatedly read and commented on my draft thesis in order to help assure that claims with respect to findings were plausible based on the data collected. The research can be considered trustworthy because I used several triangulation strategies but also because I continually checked for data representativeness and to ensure that the data and coding categories fit, and used verbatim transcription as well as direct quotations from participants.
In order to address ethical issues inherent in my research, I have been careful to ensure that my opinions and viewpoints do not overtake or supersede the perspectives of (other) study participants, or the research findings in general. I have taken steps to ensure that my relationships within the community do not negatively affect the reliability and credibility of the research. I have purposefully sought out a range of representative informants, including some who may not be enthusiastic supporters of ecological living.
As well, appropriate consent has been obtained from each interview participant, with typical assurances given regarding confidentiality and participant rights.
17 I will distribute a summary of the thesis to the co-operative under study in order to help facilitate these potential organizational changes.
Confidentiality at the individual level was maintained throughout the research process. I have created a letter of consent for each participant in the focus groups and interviews that binds me to treat the data as confidential. I did not anticipate any
problems due to power differentials, or my potential influence in the Co-op as I have no formal role in the housing co-operative sector and no ongoing contact with the members of this co-op. To address any potential perceptions of risk, I ensured the participants that this investigation was confidential. Also, I ensured that participants were aware that they could refuse to answer specific questions that they are uncomfortable with, or withdraw from the study entirely without negative consequences.
In order to promote some level of anonymity at the community level, I have deleted some descriptive details with respect to the Co-op. However, not all such details have been removed because this would potentially detract from the reader‘s ability to learn from this study. Members of the larger housing co-operative sector and individuals who are familiar with the Co-op may be able to recognize the Co-op from my description of the initiatives it has undertaken. I believe that removing details about these initiatives would not do the community justice for all of the hard work members have done;
moreover, these initiatives help to define the community itself and are necessarily a focus of the study. I do not believe that indirectly revealing the identity of the Co-op violates undertakings of individual confidentially; I do not reveal names or descriptions of respondents alongside descriptions of projects.
4.0 FINDINGS