Any research approach, regardless of its philosophy, requires a way to address the trustworthiness of the research (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989). Qualitative inquiry differs significantly from the conventional quantitative measures that attempt to show validity, soundness, and significance. The aim of trustworthiness in a qualitative inquiry is to provide persuasive support for the argument that the inquiry’s findings are “worth paying attention to” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.290). To adequately judge the quality of this research, I have followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria for interpretivist research as discussed by Wallendorf and Belk (1989) [Credibility, Dependability, Confirmability, Transferability, and Integrity].
How aspects of the study relate to the factors of trustworthiness are summarised in a table in Appendix A, along with Charmaz’s (2006) principles for Constructivist GT [Integrity, Originality, Resonance, Usefulness].
Credibility
Credibility is the extent to which the results appear to be acceptable representations of the data (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989). Credibility achieved through different measures. Firstly, the triangulation of data through multiple forms of data collection adds credibility to the study. This shows that the main
26 discussions are inherent across participants and observations. In the case of this research, many of the main research themes reached saturation early in the research process.
The second technique for enhancing the credibility of interpretation is peer debriefing as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Researchers should periodically meet with peers who are not researchers on the project, but who will serve to critique and question the emerging interpretation before the researchers become fully committed to it. My research supervisors were the Associate Professors of Marketing at the University of Waikato, Lorraine Friend and Carolyn Costley. They acted as my peer debriefers. When we had meetings, they listened to what I had to say, offering constructive advice such as potential articles to read if my analysis had similarities to known theories and paradigms. This helped with the Constant Comparison process. My supervisors also reined me back in when I had the tendency to follow many potential paths and drown myself in literature. They brought me back to my initial research question to ensure I was not going too far on tangents. Lorraine Friend’s familiarity with constructivism was also most helpful throughout the process to make sure I stayed true to my chosen methodology. Most of all they really taught me to think critically about what I was doing.
Dependability
Dependability is the extent to which the findings are unique to time and place, and the extent of which the construction of the interpretation avoids instability (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989). Triangulation by multiple data collection methods increases the dependability of the study. This suggests findings are not unique to time and place. For example, I was able to compare my initial codes of observations on crowd behaviours at rock concerts directly to codes of the narrative of my interview participants. Concert behaviours I observed are also consistent with those observed in other countries on video, and consistent with findings of Yazıcıoğlu’s (2010) of rock concert consumption in Turkey. Further studies into consumer behaviour of rock consumer behaviour in other countries will gain more insight into the dependability of this interpretation.
27
Confirmability
Confirmability is the extent to which the constructed interpretations are the results of the participants and phenomenon. A measure of how well data collection supports the inquiry’s findings, the ability to trace to records of the initial data kept (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). According to Wallendorf and Belk (1989), journals aid in establishing confirmability of the findings by tracing the interpretation of data back to early coding. I kept all the initial transcripts, as well as the spreadsheet used for sorting the thousands of individual codes into common secondary codes, concepts, and then categories of data.
Member checking is another important technique for establishing the credibility, in which I gave a document with a summary of the interpretation to members of the sample for comment (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Wallendorf & Belk, 1989; Hsieh, & Shannon, 2005). I asked participants whether my interpretation portrayed the fullness of their rock concert experience. Five participants responded, stating they thought it was a suitable interpretation of their experiences, two did not respond, while I could not contact one.
Transferability
Transferability is the extent to which conducting the study in another location with same method yield similar results. This is a criticism of qualitative research in the positivist circles, it is argued that many studies are contextual and difficult to transfer into another setting (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Due to the nature of my interpretive epistemology, I am careful to restrain from stating that this study has direct transferability into rock concert setting of another country. However, I do believe that my research design is solid, as the methods as discussed have been carried out with rigor. Therefore, another researcher conducted the research in another location it would yield similar results (at the discretional interpretation of the researcher). Rock concerts are a global phenomenon. Online video website Youtube.com provides an insight into how fans celebrate bands at rock concerts around the world.
To address transferability, the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet used for analysis to generate and conceptualise categories in analysis kept on file in case of request. My diaries used for reflection and drafting memos and theory have been kept and
28 are available to be scanned upon request. Access to the paper trail gives other researchers the ability to transfer the conclusions of these findings to other cases. This also enhances the dependability, confirmability, and credibility of the data (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).
Integrity
Integrity is the extent to which misinformation influences interpretations. Wallendorf and Belk (1989) recommend five approaches to ensuring the integrity of the data: rapport and trust, triangulation (across sources and methods), good interviewing technique, safeguarding informant identity/ethical guidelines, and researcher self-analysis and introspection.
To gain rapport and trust with participants in interviews, I shared some of my own concert stories [discussed in detail in an earlier section]. This is also a part of a good interviewing technique, which also included asking open-ended questions, and letting the interview be conversational. In contrast to one narrow method of data collection, there was inherent value in the triangulation provided by employing different data collection approaches. Integrating interviews with observations and unprompted responses to online concert reviews resulted in ‘listening to’ the participants, and ‘seeing and hearing’ what was happening by ‘being there’ (Lambert et al., 2008). I followed the ethical guidelines of the University of Waikato, as discussed in the research ethics section, and finally, introspection and reflectivity discussed in the introspection section. Specific examples can be view in Appendix A.