Consolidación de la política de evaluación institucional.

A qualitative inquiry needs to have high quality rigour and trustworthiness in order to produce a valid and a reliable study. The rigour brings quality to the enquiry and it is also ―a way of evaluating qualitative research‖ (Liamputtong, 2009). Rigour and trustworthiness is similar to the concepts of reliability and validity, which is used in positivist science (Liamputtong, 2009). If a study is trustworthy it has to be carried out fairly and ethically with findings representing close experiences of respondents (Padgett, as cited in Liamputtong, 2009) and to make certain the research is trustworthy and reliable in qualitative research it is essential to follow correct ethical procedures (Merriam, 1998). Thus, ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of a research project is significant in order to trust the research results and essential to professionals in the fields of education, for example in the case of this project.

For this project, I followed these processes of ethics (see Appendices A, B, C, and D). I explained information about the research project to the participants before the research began and even after collecting the data whenever there was a need. The teachers had access to the audio recordings

of interviews and lesson observations and the transcripts, which allowed them to check for any discrepancy. All the participants signed on the copies of the interview transcripts that I provided and they brought changes where it was necessary.

Multiple sources lead to complete triangulation of data making the research more reliable and trustworthy (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) and triangulation is the most powerful means for strengthening credibility in qualitative research (Liamputtong, 2009). Liamputtong states that credibility is similar to internal validity, which is used to find out if the explanation fits the description and if the description is credible. ―Triangulation refers to the attempt to get a ‗true‘ fix on a situation by combining different ways of looking at it (method triangulation) or different findings (data triangulation)‖ (Silverman, 2010, p. 277). According to Willis (2007) triangulation is often used as the qualitative equivalent of validity and reliability. However, Willis, states that triangulation is not a core issue in interpretive research. He also argues that a well-done study using one method, such as interviewing, may be more convincing to readers than a poorly done study using three data collection methods.

Harrison, MacGibbon and Morton (2001) also suggests the use of reciprocity, for example, the give and take of social interactions to get good

data—thick, rich, description and in-depth, intimate interviews. The importance of reciprocity is also highlighted by Creswell (2013) and for this researchers have to ask participants to examine field notes and early analysis of the project. The researchers can give back something to their participants for the effort and time given to participate in the projects. Furthermore, they should also engage the participants in member checks as a means of ensuring trustworthiness (Harrison et al., 2001).

Additionally to make this research more trustworthy and more reliable, member checking of the documents progressed in the early stages of the research process in the Maldives. This process continued again while reviewing data for the analysis. For example, initially the member checking process began when the participants started reviewing their interview transcripts in the Maldives. At the same time, they participants had opportunities to make necessary changes to these documents and any additional contributions to the translated interview transcripts from Dhivehi (local language) to English.

Later, the participants received individual narratives to check for inconsistencies, that I shared in their emails. Therefore, the participant teachers reviewed their documents and the participants added further corrections. In the whole process of data analyzing, I regularly kept on

communicating with the participants via phone, social networking and by e- mail. For, instance, whenever I needed additional information or any confusion came up with the collected data. Indeed, it was easier and convenient when the participants‘ had access to the internet.

While continuing this study at the University of Canterbury, I was able to have regular meetings with my supervisors and colleagues. In these meetings we discussed our data and the themes that emerged. Thus, we all learned data analyzing from each other. For example, two other students who studied with me also analyzed qualitative data. This opportunity provided justifiability in data analyzing as suggested by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003). Justifiability is an alternative to reliability and validity and the criteria included transparency, communicability, and coherence. Each criterion involves making use of other people to check against the tendency to impose one‘s own subjective biases on the data analysis (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). In this way, before each meeting, I shared my findings chapters with all the members of the group via e-mail and later at the meetings I explained them how I developed and reached that interpretation. At the same, we all had opportunities to discuss the selected themes and we made changes where necessary. Sometimes, there were great suggestions provided by colleagues and the supervisors and the writings of findings chapters became more

coherent.