Conclusiones Parciales:

Validity is an important check on the efficacy of the research. As pointed out, qualitative research should be conducted under the following principles to ensure its validity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992): a) data should be collected in a natural setting, b) data should be socially and culturally situated, c) the researcher should come from the researched world, d) as we live in an interpreted world, it is crucial to understand participants’ understandings of the world, in other words, human beings use complex instruments to understand other humans’ lives, e) the research should be based on a holistic understanding, f) the researcher, not only the research tool, is key to the research, g) data collected are descriptive, h) data should be analyzed inductively rather than simply according to some priori categories, i) data should be interpreted based on the respondents’ understanding rather than the researchers’ understanding, j) reporting and seeing the situation should be through the

eyes’ of the participants without bias, k) it is essential to grasp the respondents’ meaning and intention.

Compared to validity in quantitative research, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest four key criteria of validity in qualitative research: a) credibility (replacing the concept of internal validity in quantitative research), b) transferability (replacing the concept of external validity in quantitative research), c) dependability (replacing the concept of reliability in quantitative research), d) confirmability (replacing objectivity in quantitative research).

3.1.6.1 The role of the researcher

Maxwell (1992) argues that the researcher needs to be cautious and bear in mind the notion of authenticity when doing qualitative research to ensure validity. Moreover, as suggested by Mishler (1990), ‘understanding’ is a more suitable term than ’validity’ in qualitative research, since we, as researchers, are also part of the researched world so we cannot be totally objective about the research. It is crucial for the researcher to be as honest and accurate as possible in recording their understanding of people’s views. The key to ensuring validity in qualitative research is the ability to understand the meanings from the data collected and to draw inferences based on the data analysis.

Maxwell (1992) gives his notion of ‘understanding’ from five perspectives to better interpret ‘validity’ in the qualitative research:

a) descriptive validity is the ability to keep the research true and accurate to make sure that the data collected is not made up, distorted or selective; the researcher needs to stick to what actually happened be objective to the data in the research. In this respect, validity can be seen as reliability.

b) Interpretive validity is the ability to catch the meanings, interpretations, intentions, terms given by the researched person or group, so the researcher needs to understand what to the data given by the participants means to them as the subjects in this respect, validity can be thought as fidelity.

c) Theoretical validity: theory here is assumed to be explanation, it refers to the researchers’ ability to explain the phenomena.

d) Generalizability is the ability to generalize within specific communities, groups, circumstances or situations (internal validity), and the ability to generalize beyond or to outsider situations, communities or circumstances (external validity). In qualitative research, internal validity has greater significance than external validity since qualitative research is context bounded and in-depth. The theory generated may be useful in understanding similar situations or groups.

e) Evaluative validity is the ability to evaluate and judge the research although the researchers’ own evaluation criteria may intrude.

In sum, the level of validity in qualitative research is largely determined by how far the researcher can understand the actual data. Validity in qualitative research also

instruments properly chosen to achieve these purposes.

3.1.6.2 Validity in interviews

In interviews, one problem is bias. When conducting an interview, the interviewer should aim to avoid bias as much as possible to achieve greater validity. Bias may be caused by the characteristics of the researcher, the characteristics of the interviewees, the content of the questions, more specifically, bias may be caused by: a) a tendency for the interviewer to regard the interviewees as in her/his own image, c) a tendency of the interviewer to seek the answers that can support the preliminary ideas, d) interviewers’ misperception about what the interviewees say, e) interviewees misunderstanding about what is being asked (Cohen et al., 2011).

Other factors such as race, gender, religion, status, social class and age in certain situations might lead to bias in the interview. However, Hitchcock and Hughes (1989) argue that since interviews are interpersonal human interactions, it is inevitable that the interviewer and interviewees may influence each other, and therefore the data. Another issue to be noted is to avoid leading questions. A leading question is the one that makes assumptions about the respondents. Leading questions influence interviewees' responses. For example, in my study, I avoided asking questions such as ‘do you like or dislike life in the UK?’ This assumes the interviewees’ attitudes towards the life in the UK are either like or dislike. I needed to ask open question like how do you feel about life in the UK? to allow the students to answers based on their

true feelings to get a more rounded answer.

In line with the above discussion, I conducted my interviews under the following principles to improve validity. I needed to establish trust with the interviewees and provide a friendly atmosphere for the interview to avoid being seen as an authority. I needed to clearly inform the interviewees about the purpose, form and structure of the interviews to make sure the participants were clear about each stage. The terminology needed to be clear and familiar to the respondents as well as context and material referred to. The participants were allowed to take their time and respond in their own ways. As the interviewer, I tried to be empathic and sensitive by using active listening skills and being sensitive to how things were expressed. Non-verbal communication such as polite gesture and eye contact was also involved, and I was alert to some aspects in the interview which could be of significance to the respondents or which they might be sensitive about. When conducting the interview, as the interviewer, I always tried to keep to the point and stick to the matter in hand while not to be direct. I tried to address the targeted areas, while checking the validity and consistency of the questions to each interviewee by being well-organised with a check-list of key issues.