Seale and Silverman (1997, 379-80) state that authenticity rather than reliability is often the issue in qualitative research. The aim is to gather an ‘authentic’ understanding of people’s experiences. Open-ended questions and interviews are often used in qualitative research to gain this understanding of people’s experiences. These authors also state that the quality lies in the use of language to paint pictures in which we even get to know ourselves better. Many authors refer to the rigour of qualitative research. It is often a very big task to construct huge amounts of data from interviews and questionnaires and to analyse and interpret the data so that what it reveals is credible and can be justified based on plausible explanations. Golafshani (2003, 600) refers to precision, credibility and transferability as characterising qualitative research. He
79
further states that “qualitative researchers seek illumination, understanding and extrapolation to similar situations”. Furthermore, Golafshani (2003, 601) states that, in qualitative study,
reliability equates with a “purpose to explain”, while quality has the purpose of “generating understanding”.
With reference to my research, I worked with groups of respondents, requiring them to respond to interviews and questionnaires. The data constructed would then have to explain and generate an understanding of the questions relating to the research. There is no doubt, however, that trustworthiness is a crucial element in qualitative research. One must remember that reliability and validity take different forms in qualitative research. That form is justifications and
argumentations based on thick descriptions and member checking. Rigour, as mentioned earlier, is described by Twycross and Shields (2005, 36) as the overall planning and
implementation of the research design and whether it was done in a logical and systematic way.
Furthermore, rigour refers to discipline and adherence to detail with strict accuracy. To achieve trustworthiness, thick descriptions and member checking play a crucial role. Qualitative
research is also iterative, so the research has to make sure that everything is logical and that the design, question formulation, data construction and analysis are all interrelated and agree with one another. A tremendous responsibility rests on the researcher, who uses the various
strategies, to verify the constructed data that determine the reliability of the study. According to Morse et al. (2002, 11), verification strategies include methodological coherence, large enough samples, and a relationship between sampling, data collection, analysis, thinking theoretically, and theory development.
In this study, the questions match the method and both agree with the data and analysis thereof.
Furthermore, the participants were all directly involved in the research topic and were the best samples from which to obtain information. There also is definite interaction between the data and the analysis thereof. Some interesting and new ideas emerged from the data, which will be discussed later. However, there was a definite understanding between the theory and the development of the arguments. The important thing is to maintain rigour throughout the study, and this will be discussed in the next section.
4.7.1 Verification in qualitative research and maintain rigour in the study Qualitative researchers use different criteria to verify their research than quantitative
researchers use. Many researchers speak about the consistency of the data, as well as whether it is sensible. The results must also meet with the approval of other researchers and educators.
One must be able to understand the world experienced by the respondents who participated in
80
the research and, in turn, be able to explain what they experienced. This very aptly applies to the respondents in this study, who were involved in school governance. Strategies like triangulation, member checking and thick descriptions serve to confirm the credibility of qualitative research. In the case of the present study, thick descriptions, rich with meaning from detailed descriptions given by the respondents, served to verify the credibility and
dependability of the constructed data. I also shared the transcripts with the respective
stakeholders to verify whether I had transcribed the interviews correctly. In these discussions I further confirmed that was transcribed was exactly the way they experienced school
governance. All my preliminary findings were shared with the principals of the respective schools. They all agreed and verified the factual aspects of the data and also agreed with the analysis presented. As mentioned earlier, the aim was to arrive at the truth by describing and understanding the experiences or stories told by the respondents. There was a correlation between the interviews and questionnaires in this study, and as mentioned earlier, aspects of this study were similar to those of a study done in SDA schools in the USA, where similar problems were found to exist. One can readily see that validity and reliability in the qualitative research paradigm are different from that of the quantitative research paradigm. The qualitative research paradigm uses personal experiences, life stories, interviews, questionnaires,
observation and other means to describe what is happening in the individual’s life. Once the data is constructed, meaning is attached by way of analysis and using the facts as they are presented. Trustworthiness is crucial in determining the reliability, credibility, dependability and validity of the research. In other words, when other researchers examine the study they must find it trustworthy and credible. Bashir, Afzal and Azeem (2008, 41) state that “the idea of discovering truth through measures of reliability and validity is replaced by the idea of trustworthiness, which is defensible and establishing confidence in the findings”.
Morse et al. (2002, 9-13) discuss the verification process, and it is their contention that this process must occur during the research process in order to ensure trustworthiness and
credibility. In this way, errors can be corrected at every step as you go along. This refers to the iterations of qualitative research. The authors contend that, by systematically checking the data, you can remain focused on the analysis and interpretation of your data which is then verified at every step. Morse et al. (2002, 12-13) mention five specific aspects as part of verification strategies:
First, the aim of methodological coherence is to ensure congruence between the research question and the components of the method. Second, the sample must be appropriate, consisting of participants who best represent or have knowledge of the research topic. Third, collecting and analysing data concurrently forms a mutual interaction between what is known and what one needs to know. The fourth aspect is
81
thinking theoretically. Ideas emerging from data are reconfirmed in new data; lastly the aspect of theory development is to move with deliberation between a micro perspective of the data and a macro conceptual theoretical understanding.
On the other hand, Guest, MacQueen and Namey (2012, 83) suggest the following alternate terms with respect to validity: trustworthiness, worthy, relevant, plausible, confirmable, credible and representative. Another term that has also becoming more common, say Guest, MacQueen and Namey (2012, 83), is “legitimacy”. They also state that the most common term used on the list above is credibility, which refers to “confidence in the truth of the context”.
With regard to reliability in qualitative inquiry, Guest, MacQueen and Namey (2012, 83) state that the following terms have been proposed: “Stability, consistency, predictability and
accuracy.” The most common word used that belongs to the same group is “dependability”.
They proceed to explain that the goal for the researcher is to understand or explain a particular phenomenon. They state that “[w]e must rely on our own judgment and that of our peers – judgment based on information available – to decide whether or not what we do and have done, and the findings we present, are valid” (Guest, MacQueen and Namey 2012, 84). It is further argued that one does not want to replicate qualitative research because it is not designed with that in mind, further, that qualitative research is inductive and that even semi-structured interviews, where the same questions are used, need a great deal of inductive probing to elicit the requested information. Furthermore, a yardstick is needed to know whether the constructed data, summaries and interpretation thereof are valid.
Guest, MacQueen and Namey (2012, 85) suggest that “transparency of process is critical to making a convincing case for the validity of one’s findings and interpretation”. They aver that,
“although explicit documentation and description of procedures does not guarantee validity, it does provide information for others” (2012, 85). In other words, others can then determine the credibility of the findings and their interpretation. What can also substantially increase the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings is if “the same trends and themes emerge within the data from different participant groups and data construction methods” (2012, 85). They state further that “nothing in qualitative research is more important to these ends than using verbatim quotes … words, quotes are the stars of qualitative research. They bring the raw data – the participants’ words – to the reader and are what connect the phenomenological world of the participant to the data summary and interpretation generated by the researcher” (Guest, MacQueen and Namey 2012, 95).
Much of what has been said about trustworthiness and credibility applies to this study. I have detailed the data very carefully so that there is evidence of thick descriptions. The rechecking
82
of the transcriptions and verifying what had been said with all the groups of respondents was carried out very successfully. I have made extensive use of verbatim quotations in the study.
This definitely gives credibility to the findings of the study. Furthermore, I believe that there were ample checks and balances to ensure trustworthiness and credibility.
The iterative nature of qualitative research, particularly in this stud, which made use of semi-structure interviews and semi-semi-structured questionnaires, contributes to the credibility of the findings. I know that bias exists, but I have tried to use questions that would have elicited information as truthfully as possible. However, I realise that nothing is absolutely bias free, although I do believe that it was not a big problem in this study. What definitely added to the trustworthiness and credibility of this study is the fact that the same trends and themes emerged from the different groups of respondents using the same data construction methods. Qualitative research is inductive by nature and I do believe that the data constructed from the interviews and questionnaires is credible, as can be seen from the verbatim quotes later in this study.
I now reflect on ethical issues.