Condiciones

When justifying qualitative inquiry Peshkin (1993) points out that the focus should be respecting, and not defending, the integrity of the qualitative approach. Such respect derives not from issues and premises as defined by non-qualitative inquiry, but rather from taking qualitative inquiry as the starting point by asking, ‘What is its [the study’s] generative promise [of the study]?’ (Peshkin 1993:23). This study has two main outcomes in terms of qualitative inquiry namely ‘describing’ and ‘interpreting’ which arose from a need to understand the graduate transition into first-time

Families

Super families

A section of the codes

employment. For Peshkin (1993), the proof of the research lies in its outcome. In other words, did I, as the researcher, succeed in describing and interpreting the graduate journeys in a way that enhanced the understanding thereof? To answer this question I apply the concept of goodness to my research.

The concept of goodness is embedded in the dynamic, interactive processes throughout the research and is situated within 1) the epistemology and theory that informs the study, 2) the methodology, 3) the collection of data, 4) the representation of the voices in the study, 5) the interpretation and presentation of the data, and 6) the recommendations emanating from the research (Arminio & Hultgren 2002; Tobin & Begley 2004). During the research the researcher moves back and forth between the design and implementation in order to ensure that goodness is reflected throughout the whole study. Goodness becomes the overarching principle to ensure the quality and scientific rigour of the research (Tobin & Begley 2004). I applied the abovementioned six criteria to this study in the following way to demonstrate the goodness of the research and thus the trustworthiness and authenticity of the study:

1) My approach towards the participants was characterised by empathy. I aimed for an insider perspective with regard to their experiences and allowed them to narrate their experiences. I listened to them and provided a safe space where they could convey their experiences, while being cognisant of my preconceived perceptions. After each interview I deliberately reflected on similarities or exceptions in comparison to previous interviews, literature and my preconceived ideas (Tobin & Begley 2004). My researcher position supported the interpretive paradigm.

2) The methodology suggests the specific route I took upon the broad research map. The methodology supports and is supported by the research paradigm; in this case an interactional, inductive and qualitative methodology (cf. 1.5.2. The research approach).

3) The chosen approach informed the choice of data collection (cf.1.5.5. Data collection). The semi-structured interviews with the participants produced thick, detailed descriptions about their experiences. Arminio and Hultgren (2002) find goodness in such data.

4) In the representation of the voices in a study, goodness is found when the researcher does not present him/herself as an expert on others’ experiences but rather allows the participants’ voices to be heard (Arminio & Hultgren 2002). I was cognisant of my researcher position and asked myself the question (Arminio & Hultgren 2002:454), ‘How shall I be towards these people I am studying?’ I realised that I had to build a participant-researcher relationship which reflected the participants’ conviction that I would present a true reflection of their experiences. I started doing this at the point when I phoned them to arrange appointments. I was honest about what the research was about, how long the interview would take and what was expected from them. I continued the relation building process by following up the telephone call with an email confirming the appointment. I respected their time by being on time for every appointment and did not reschedule appointments. This process contributed to the dependability of the research process as all the telephone calls, emails and diarised appointments are documented and traceable.

During the interview, I gave my full attention to the participant and listened to them attentively. I often rephrased what they said to confirm that I understood them correctly.

During the interpretations of the transcriptions I remained cognisant of my researcher bias and subjectivity. To ensure the credibility of my interpretations, I compared my coding of transcriptions to that of my supervisor who also coded several transcriptions. This comparison revealed considerable similarity between our respective codings (Tobin & Begley 2004).

5) The importance of meaning making lies in the art of interpretation and presentation. To fulfil goodness in interpretation and presentation, data analysis should open up text even beyond the participant’s own understanding. This type of analysis requires repeated listening and reading of the text and the coding thereof according to themes (Arminio & Hultgren 2002). I repeatedly listened to interviews and each transcript was read at least six times during various phases of the data analysis. In interpreting the data, I attempted not only to report on experiences as told to me but rather construct meanings within the chosen theoretical frameworks to explicate the realities of the participants. Although the data consisted of only of one interview transcript per participant, the relatively large number of transcripts ensured

sufficient recurrence of identified themes. On the other hand, they also gave evidence of the unique experiences of participants.

6) The purpose of social science research is to improve lives. Goodness requires recommendations of how practice can be transformed through the insight gained in a study (Arminio & Hultgren 2002). As indicated in the findings of each article and the conclusion chapter, the recommendations highlight the complexity of the graduate transition and the importance for all stakeholders to take responsibility to support graduates during this journey (cf. 3.7, 4.9, 5.6, 6.8). The aim is that the recommendations would be oriented towards the possibilities for practical action informed by sound research (Tomlinson & Holmes 2016).

Goodness provides a creative and innovative way to judge qualitative research. The research process must demonstrate meaning making through all the elements of the process linked together to offer new understandings and improved practices. The theoretical approach, methodology and data collection supported the generative promise of this research and provided a host of rich and thick data to enhance the understanding of graduate transitions into employment.