There is a growing body of literature which describes ways in which qualitative research can be critically appraised. Here, several authors have claimed that qualitative research can be evaluated by either transferring quality markers used within the quantitative research paradigm (Gaskell & Bauer, 2000) or by using markers specifically applicable to the qualitative paradigm (Madill et al., 2000). Madill et al. argue that approaches to assessing the quality of qualitative research will vary according to the epistemological position from which the research is carried out, something they state is seldom acknowledged. For example, researchers aligned to the realist epistemologies are likely to transfer quantitative principles such as objectivity and reliability to evaluate their research whereas those subscribing to a more constructivist standpoint would reject such application and instead apply principles more closely aligned with their ontology. One such approach used by constructivists is the concept of permeability which is the idea that a person’s understandings can be changed by observations.
78 Given that this research has positioned itself from a critical realist standpoint, it considers that quantitative markers of research quality can be adapted and applied to evaluate the research conducted as part of the thesis. Subscribing to this idea, Gaskell and Bauer (2000) outline six criteria which can be applied to qualitative research which, they suggest, represent functional equivalents of quantitative notions of reliability and validity. The following discussion seeks to outline each of these criteria and suggest how they might be applied to the current research. Firstly, the authors cite reflexivity and triangulation as ways in which confidence in the validity of qualitative results can be gained. Reflexivity is described as involving:
“ongoing self-awareness during the research process which aids in making
visible the practice and construction of knowledge within research in order to produce more accurate analyses of our research” (Pillow, 2003, pg. 178).
Using this approach, the researcher has to be wary of the origins of their interpretations of the qualitative data, to decentre their own position. This was considered particularly pertinent to the current research given that it grapples with the sensitive subjects of sexuality, sexual offending and intellectual disability. As such, the researcher maintained a reflective diary throughout the duration of the research in which she reflected upon her observations and interpretations. She also discussed her reflections with her research supervision team. Chapter Nine of this thesis offers an overview of the researcher’s reflections. Gaskell and Bauer state that triangulating different methods or perspectives will also lend to the quality of the research. This thesis seeks to triangulate different perspectives by recruiting practitioners from HM Prison Service in one study of the thesis to administer the vignettes and offer their feedback.
‘Transparency and procedural clarity’ are the second criteria put forward and are cited as essential elements of good quality qualitative research. The authors compare transparency to the quantitative measures of internal and external validity and suggest methods such as provision of detailed descriptions of recruitment methods, participant details and the interview topic guide as some of the ways in which this can be judged. This thesis offers a clear and detailed guide as to the research procedures adopted as well as providing examples of the interview schedules within the Appendices (Appendices 4 and 6) and an example interview transcript (Appendix 10) in order to lend quality in this way. It was also considered important to offer detail concerning the process of data analysis and how themes
79 were identified to further lend to the transparency of the thesis. Thus, this thesis seeks to offer transparency and clarity in its approach to data analysis.
The third criterion, ‘corpus construction’, represents an equivalent of the quantitative measures of sampling and sample size. However, instead of the sample size being of concern here, it is the process of saturation of the research data which contributes to the sample’s representativeness. Thus, the authors advise the qualitative researcher should access a good spread of data sources, ensuring exemplars from each strata are included, and should only cease data collection once saturation point is reached, that is, where no novel observations emerge from new data. However, as will be highlighted within the second study of this thesis, the researcher was not able to access the volume of participants to facilitate this sampling strategy.
In outlining the fourth criterion, ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1974), the authors suggest that a researcher can achieve high fidelity in reporting by making frequent use of verbatim reporting, thereby allowing the reader to judge the researcher’s interpretations by reference to the raw data. However, Gaskell and Bauer (2000) note that this should not be a method by which the researcher can ‘cherry pick’ quotations on the basis of their congruence with their own prejudices but, rather, data excerpts should provide an accurate reflection of the corpus data. In reporting the themes identified within the data, this thesis will offer both a detailed description of each theme as well as representative data excerpts as examples. The thesis will also provide an indication as to the strength of each theme.
The fifth criterion outlined by Gaskell and Bauer suggests that reporting surprise results, that is, insights which contravene common sense and/or theory, will add to the quality of the data. The authors see this concept as being akin to quantitative practices of hypothesis testing and falsification and see this as a necessary practice in qualitative research, steering the researcher away from bias in the selection of evidence to interpret. Gadamer (1975) explains that expected markers of this include reporting revealing insights, demonstration of the researcher’s open-mindedness to results which go against what was expected or a change of thought throughout the research process on the basis of findings. This thesis therefore sought to report all findings, whether or not these were in line with the researcher’s expectations.
The final criterion, ‘communication validation’, refers to the process of taking the researcher’s interpretations of the data back to the data source for confirmation. This method allows for the researcher’s interpretations to be judged by those against whom the interpretations were made. However, the authors acknowledge that this may not always be
80 effective, particularly where the researcher’s interpretation is not a favourable one. Whilst the researcher valued the feeding back of general findings to the participants, it was not felt that taking individual interpretations back to the participants was appropriate in this instance. The first reason for this was that it may not have been practical to add this phase into the data collection and analysis due to time constraints. Secondly, since the beliefs were to be elicited in response to the vignettes it was felt that participants may wish to change their response upon reflection. Indeed, we have seen that a person may not be aware of their beliefs until they are elicited in-action (Armstrong, 1973) so participants’ motivations may differ once they are no longer engaged with the vignette. Furthermore, since the researcher sought to employ minimal interpretation it was felt that the likelihood of misinterpreting the client’s meaning was minimised.