CAPITULO IV MARCO TEÓRICO
4.1.1 COMPORTAMIENTO DE LA LECHADA DE CEMENTO EN ROCA FRACTURADA.
It cannot be ignored that case study methodology has been criticized for its weak reliability (Yin, 2003a), validity, objectivity, and thus, generalizability
(Feagin et al., 1991). However, these characteristics are more likely to be connected to positivist perspectives and research.
Reliability is defined as “the ability to replicate the original study using the same research instrument and to get the same result” (Feagin et al., 1991: 17). In qualitative research however, even if the original study was replicated in the same context, used the same participants, and employed the same data collection methods and analysis, different findings might result because the researcher has an active role in these and has influence through his or her presence in the field (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). It may be argued that in all naturalistic research, objectivity is inappropriate because the researcher’s system of values, belief, and perceptions all become part of the research process. In fact this makes the qualitative researcher more sensitive to the various contexts and interactions in the field of study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Replication of the qualitative case study might not produce exactly the same findings, as different researchers collect and analyze data from different standpoints. Secondly, participants’ experiences of everyday life influence their views of the issues they examine. Thus, a participant’s view of a certain issue at a certain point in time may differ from their view at another time. Thus, the notion of reliability, as the ability to replicate an original study identically and to receive the exact results, is better understood as a quantitative characteristic that can be used in studies where participants’ and researchers’ influence is a more limited aspect of conducting the study.
However, providing a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973: 16) and a clear account of the procedures that were followed along the entire research journey (Yin, 2003b: 38), including personal interpretations, values, findings, and the setting of the study, help the reader to see how such findings have been produced, and enables them to better understand or repeat the study, and also judge whether the findings can be transferred to other settings (Pope et al., 2002). As such, the thick description or documentation enhances qualitative transferability as a form of generalization.
In addition to close or ‘thick’ documentation of how work progresses, a continuous process of reflection by the researcher is important in ensuring the rigour of collected data since the case study methodology has also been criticized for promoting the “idiosyncratic bias of the investigator” (Feagin et al., 1991: 18), as it is the researcher who constructs interpretations and labels and analyses evidence. Continuous process of reflection includes reflection from the early stages where the study is developed and through to conducting the fieldwork itself. It is also necessary to show the researcher’s methods of processing data and constructing conclusions to enable them to better repeat the study.
Validity: Validity “refers to the issue of whether an indicator (or set of indicators) that is devised to gauge a concept really measures that concept” (Bryman, 2008: 151). Validity in conventional research might be measured in several ways, these are: internal validity, external validity, and construct validity. Internal validity is “establishing a causal relationship, whereby
certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions, as distinguished from spurious relationships”, and can be achieved by addressing rival explanations (Yin, 2003b: 34).
External validity, on the other hand, is “establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized”. This can be achieved in research using a single case study design by using a theory, or in the multiple-case study design by using replication logic (Yin, 2003b: 34). That is, rather than depending on statistical logic to enhance external validity, writers such as Yin (2003a: 47) have argued that qualitative case studies depend on replication logic, and results are enhanced by examining multiple cases. According to Yin (2003b), using multiple case study design can yield both literal replication and theoretical replication. Literal replication means that the selected case produces results that can be found in other similar cases. Theoretical replication means that the case and framework used can produce different results from other cases because of different and expected conditions. For example, in my research, it was proposed before conducting the fieldwork that I select two different contexts, a military situation which is a ‘highly structured environment’ (Kocher & Thomas, 1994: 61) in which nursing care practices follow a rigid care model, and a public hospital in which nursing care practices do not follow a specific care model (Shuriquie et al., 2008). It was felt that such a combination would allow both literal and theoretical replication (Yin, 2003b). Some of the factors were similar in both hospitals among analogous cases (wards of patients of the same gender) as they share the same Jordanian social context. In addition,
different organizational structures were proposed to consider a different range of influences, opening up the design for theoretical replication among hospitals of varying organizational structures. In this research, both types of replication logic have been attempted.
Construct validity is “establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied”, and this can be achieved by taking precautions such as using multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2003b: 34). Stake (1995) and Feaginet al. (1991) have argued that case study research has advantages over some other strategies in that it encourages the researcher to collect evidence using more than one data collection method, in what is called ‘method triangulation’. As will be shown in a later section, this research uses multiple data collection methods: non-participant observation supplemented with informal interviews, semi-structured interviews, and document review within multiple cases.
However, it is important to note that the three characteristics discussed previously (objectivity, reliability, validity whether internal or external) do not measure the naturalistic qualitative research trustworthiness (neutrality, consistency, applicability and truth value) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985: 290), because they are more central to quantitative studies. Thus, the following criteria were used to ensure the qualitative rigour of the case study.