Derechos programáticos

Measuring reliability and validity is a contextually multifaceted process specific to the methodological approach. I do not claim that reliability and validity risks have been, or may ever be, completely dealt with (Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, 2011) but this sections purpose is to illustrate how I paid attention to these risks.

In this qualitative study, I used a naturalistic research approach that aimed to understand and explain phenomena within a specific context (Patton, 2001 as cited Golafshani, 2003). As Hoepfl (1997) remarks, qualitative researchers must not attempt to determine causality, prediction or generalisations, but rather aim to highlight phenomena and perhaps extrapolate the findings to similar contexts (as cited in Golafshani, 2003). Therefore, I do not claim that this study predicts causality between managers experience of sustainability tensions and their decisions, but rather, through precision (Winter, 2000 as cited in Golafshani, 2003), I aimed for this study to be credible and provide potentially transferrable results (Hoepfl, 1997) to similar contexts (as cited in Golafshani, 2003).

Given the subsequent controversy of applying traditional reliability and validity measures to qualitative studies, many researchers have varying perspectives on the concepts and how they apply to qualitative research. In the context of the current qualitative study, in which all of the data gathered was from interviews and through theoretical examination of the literature, I acknowledged the constraints of applying

like other scholars, re-assessed and redefined the concepts of reliability and validity to be appropriate for this qualitative study by referring to the robustness of my study with terms such as ‘Credibility, neutrality, dependability, applicability and transferability’ (Lincoln, Guba, 1985 as cited in Golafshani, 2003).

When it comes to reliability, some scholars argue that in qualitative research, the quality of the study’s reliability can be judged on its ability to generate understanding by the reader (Stenbacka, 2001). I therefore, through a rigorous explanation of my study’s undertakings and findings, attempted to deconstruct the phenomena under examination – which could have otherwise be confusing (Eisner, 1991 as cited in Golafshani, 2003 ). Additionally, as mentioned I do not judge my study on its reliability per say but rather its dependability, which Lincoln and Guba (1985) remark is a more suitable terminology to be used. Stenbacka (2001) also agrees that the terminology reliability should not be used to qualitative research. Nevertheless, other scholars such as Patton, (2002, as cited in Golafshani, 2003) believe qualitative researchers should use the term.

Through the study I ensured that consistent research processes were maintained throughout the design, however, I did honour the unique circumstances of each one- on-one interview and at times let the process be a natural conversation (that still followed the interview guide) versus a mechanistic procedure. Golafshani (2003) mentions the need for ‘trustworthiness’ in order to ensure reliability in qualitative research, which I earned through a substantial participant-observation period that took place with over half of the sample before the interviewing process commenced. Through this process, I was able to build relationships with firm managers and sector association heads and when I needed to source additional participants for interviews, the sector association heads were the gatekeepers that gave me access to these. I also ensured participants that all information was anonymous and the results would be shared with them and the sector heads on request.

The concept of validity has a variance of connotations in qualitative research and therefore cannot be simplified to a single definition, but rather understanding it as a construct that details the processes and the intentions of the particular research methodology and study (Winter, 2000 as cited in Golafshani, 2003). Similar to reliability, many qualitative researchers do not believe concepts of validity apply to

qualitative research. I, nevertheless, recognise the need to have a way of qualifying my work (Golafshani, 2003). Golafshani (2003) note that Creswell & Miller (2000) suggest that validity is inherently constructed by that particular researcher’s understanding of validity, so I therefore developed my own ways to achieve validity through rigour and trustworthiness in my data analysis process, which will be discussed. Many scholars do not believe it is possible for a study to be 100% valid. In the case of this qualitative study, the opinions, subjectivity, attitudes and perspectives all contribute to a high degree of bias, which means validity should not be used as an absolute, but rather as a variety of degrees.

In the current study, my employment of principles from the Gioia Methodology provided a degree of rigour to the study. My consistent efforts to maintain participants voices and not be too influenced by prior literature allowed the study to be grounded in the authentic lived experience of those experiencing the phenomena that I aimed to understand. Concurrently, the step-by-step data-analysis approach provided me with a systematic process of extracting raw data, connecting it with relevant theory and then examining what relationships existed between the concepts that emerged. This thorough data-analysis process was compounded with my utilisation of the qualitative data-analysis software Atlas.ti that added a detailed systematic layer to my coding process.

The in-depth and extensive research period, which consisted of participant- observation fieldwork and a degree of background reading set the grounds for me to get data from a number of sources aside from the interview process. This allowed for triangulation of converging data sources that enable researchers to fill the gaps in the interviews as they have extensive knowledge and understanding of the firm managers’ obvious and less obvious tensions. Eisenhardt (1989) note that the application of triangulation through multiple data methods provides stronger verification of constructs and hypotheses. I audio recorded and transcribed all interviews personally so as to ensure the information was correctly captured and also to pick up on less obvious social cues, such as silence or a participant having trouble answering a question. The limited field notes taken during the interview process were points that held significance or connected closely with previous interviews. This enabled me to capture and make these connections during the data-collection process and not have to

wait until the end at which point some key nuances may have been forgotten and gone unnoticed.

3.6 Conclusion

The inductive qualitative and exploratory methodological approach employed in this study enabled me to delve into understanding how SME managers’ experiences of sustainability tensions influenced their sustainability decision-making. The participant observation built into the study built a level of trust between the participants and researcher that facilitated in-depth interviews surfacing the internal experiences of managers, which allowed them to self-reflect on how their experiences and perceptions of sustainability influenced their decision-making. The wide sample base created a robust case study that provided a diversity of nuanced perspectives that are important in a phenomenological approach honouring the lived experiences of participants. Coupled with the former was the temporal aspect of the study that allowed me to understand if and how managers experiences of sustainability tensions and their decision-making altered or stayed the same over the year-long period in which the study took place. The Gioia Methodology gave me a detailed and systematic approach to analysing the data that gave the study strong validity and reliability in approach and findings.