Declaración de Bávaro (2003)

Patton (2002) points out that the importance of validity, verification and reliability in qualitative research cannot be overlooked as they aid the researcher in analysing data and ensuring that the study results are credible. Polit and Hungler (1995: 656) consider validity to be “the degree to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure”. Validity generally concerns the integrity of the research. Reliability on the other hand, concerns the reputability of the study results. Bryman (2012) opines that “the term is commonly used in relation to the question whether the measures that are devised for concepts in the social sciences are consistent”. In distinguishing between reliability and validity, Cavana et al. (2001) posit that, while the former is concerned with consistency and stability in measurements, the latter is concerned with whether the right concept is being measured by the researcher.

Yin (2008) and Bryman (2008) identify four ways of scrutinising the quality of qualitative empirical social research. They include: reliability, internal validity, external validity and construct validity.

 Reliability: this has to do with the credibility of the study findings. Reliability is considered to be “the degree of consistency or dependability with which an

instrument measures the attribute it is designed to measure” (Polit and Hungler, 1995: 651). In other words, reliability entails the requirement that the same study results should be achieved if the study is to be repeated by a different researcher. To put it more succinctly, Gummesson (1988: 146) explains that reliability seeks to answer the question: “If the investigation had been carried out by someone other than the author, using his methods, would the same results have been obtained?”

 Internal validity: Research is deemed to be valid if the proposed outcomes are met. Therefore, De Vaus (2001) considers internal validity to be the extent to which accurate conclusions can be drawn from the study results given the composition of the study design. Yin (2003) and Alvesson (2003) propose that, depending on the study setup, stronger internal validity can be gained with fewer alternatives. As such, it is important for the research design to be structured in such a way that reduces uncertainties in the study. De Vaus (2001) admits that, though it is impractical to completely eliminate study ambiguities in social research, it is certainly possible to minimise them.

 External validity: Blichfeldt and Andersen (2006) describe this quality test to focus on the generalisability of the study results beyond the study. In testing for external validity through generalising study findings, it is crucial to take into consideration factors such as; the type of research, the sample being studied, the confidence level placed on the theories and constructs being developed, and the degree to which these factors can be generalised. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), external validity is determining if the study conclusions possess any larger import, or if the study findings are generalizable with earlier theory. In furtherance to this view, Minichiello et al. (1990) maintain that generalising study findings in a qualitative empirical study is made to the theory rather than the study population. To ensure external validity in this research and to enhance replication and theoretical generalizability, data was obtained from participants in 20 countries, but more specifically, from three stakeholder groups (NOC presidents, coaches and athletes) within three case study countries.

 Construct validity: This is concerned with linking the collection of data to research questions in order to expose and minimise subjectivity (De Vaus,

94

2001). Investigator subjectivity is almost unavoidable in qualitative empirical research making it difficult to test construct validity. However, Diefenbach (2009) suggests that one of the ways to mitigate against this is by the use of multiple sources of evidence, otherwise referred to as data triangulation (Easterby-Smith et al., 2004). The collection of data from different participant groups in this study was also a deliberate attempt at mitigating against subjectivity.

Validity and reliability were achieved in this study through an assessment of the plausibility and credibility of already existing knowledge on some of the performance issues identified by the research participants. The discussions on sports performance and success from other literature sources carried out in the literature review chapter provided the validity and reliability in this study.

The verification took place between phase 3 and 4 of the study following interpretation and analysis of data; this involved presenting the key issues raised by participants in the first stage of interviews (Phase 3, stage 2) to participants in the second stage of interviews (phase 3, stage 3) in order to verify the issues that were evolving. The first stage of interviews was done with twenty countries and the verification stage was done with nine countries. The main purpose of the verification process was to ensure that the data being generated and the resulting framework were not being influenced by the researcher’s own view, thus distancing the researcher from the reality in question. After a more detailed outline of the main issues that accounted for the poor performance of African nations in the London 2012 Olympics from the verification stage, the validation stage involved presenting the key issues on performance in view of the proposed model for addressing these issues, to different stakeholders. This group of stakeholders comprised of representatives from three countries and an independent representative from the African National Olympic Committee Association (ANOCA). The validation was achieved through a further set of interviews (phase 4). Furthermore, research rigour was achieved in this study through a focus on validation and verification; this involved thinking theoretically, methodological coherence, the researcher’s responsiveness during the fieldwork, sampling procedures and data analysis.

3.8.1 Triangulation

Triangulation simply involves the use of several measures and methods of an empirical phenomenon to ‘overcome problems of bias and validity’ in social research (Scandura and Williams, 2000; Blaikie, 2000). Triangulation according to Brannen (2004: 314) is also seen as the use of data results from one data set to corroborate results from another. Triangulation is brought about by the ethical necessity to confirm the validity and reliability of study results, and this can be achieved in case study research through the utilisation of multiple data sources (Yin, 2003).

From Creswell’s (2003) viewpoint, the purpose of triangulation is to compare data in order to ascertain if it corroborates and as such, validates the research findings. Triangulation is therefore considered to be an important way of improving the credibility of qualitative research findings. Bearing in mind that every method adopted by a researcher has its own strengths and weaknesses, triangulation can be used as a means of increasing reliability by minimising systematic error, through the adoption of a strategy where the researcher uses multiple sources of data.

Easterby-Smith et al. (2004) identify four different types of triangulation which are as follows:

i. Theoretical triangulation: This involves the use of models from one discipline to explain occurrences in another discipline.

ii. Data triangulation: This is referred to the collection of data from different sources over different periods of time.

iii. Methodological triangulation: This involves the use of both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods.

iv. Triangulation by the investigator: This refers to the collection of data by different people on a given situation with the aim of comparing the results obtained.

In view of the above discussion and for the purpose of this research work, data triangulation had to do with cross-referencing the data obtained from semi-structured interviews conducted with research participants in phase 3 of the study, with interview data obtained from the participants from the three case study countries in phase 4 of the study. In other words, the data from phase 3 of the study was obtained

96

cross-referenced against the data obtained from coaches and athletes from the three case study countries in phase 4.