2.3 Clasificación de los carcinógenos
2.4.1 Determinación de carcinógenos genotóxicos
As already discussed, this research is considered to be both practical and critical action research, as it analyzes qualitative data and co-constructs knowledge with participants for practical suggestions and social change.
To develop the criteria for this qualitative research, I first discuss validity. In general, validity examines to what extent the research investigates what the researcher seeks to investigate (Nunan, 1992). For qualitative research, Maxwell (1992) suggests five components of validity: descriptive validity, interpretative validity, theoretical validity, generalizability and evaluative validity. Descriptive validity concerns whether the researcher’s account is factual. Interpretative validity concerns what physical objects, events and behaviors mean to those engaged in the research. Theoretical validity concerns whether the researcher’s description and interpretation develops to the level of theoretical construction. Generalizability concerns to what extent the account of a particular situation or person is extended to other situations and persons. Generalizability has two types: internal generalizability and external generalizability. The former is generalizing within the setting or community. The latter is generalizing to other communities or institutions.
generalizability. Evaluative validity concerns how the researcher evaluates the situation, i.e., the category of the value judgment of the situation.
Action research has its own quality criteria which differ from the criteria in qualitative research in general. Burns (1999: 160-162) discusses the quality criteria of action research, referring to Anderson et al. (1994). They argue that the purposes of practitioner research are not really concerned with generating theories in order to disseminate them, but applying knowledge generated from the research in specific contexts; they suggest five types of validity for action research: democratic validity, outcome validity, process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. Democratic validity asks to what extent the voices of participants are reflected. Outcome validity asks what successful outcomes actions yield for solving and reframing the problem. Process validity asks how adequate the process of the research is. Catalytic validity asks to what extent the research allows participants to understand the social realities in their context and make changes. Dialogic validity asks to what extent critical views from peers or other researchers are reflected. All of these quality criteria for action research are useful and important for this research. Democratic validity can check if my perspectives as well as those of students and teachers are reflected in the research. Since this research needs their perspectives to explore an appropriate pedagogy, this validity check is necessary. Outcome validity can check if the outcomes of my practice lead to solving or raising new issues or questions. In this research, whether or not an appropriate pedagogy is finally developed needs to be checked. Process validity checks if students can learn from my practice and if various types of data are collected from different sources. Catalytic validity is also relevant because teachers and students engaged in this research are asked to discuss or give suggestions on the pedagogy that I explore in relation to their situations, which would promote their understanding of the situations. Dialogic validity can check how good my research is. Teachers who participated in this research can check the action part of this research, as they critically
evaluated my practice. Furthermore, my supervisors can examine the whole process of this research.
As regards generalizability, Burns (2005) refers to recoverability as an alternative concept, which means that if the story of research is plausible, the methodology, and the procedures of data collection and data analysis can be recoverable by other teachers or researchers (Checkland & Holwell, 1998). This research adopts recoverability as one of the quality criteria. Although this research is conducted in a specific context, the story of the research, including its research methods and process of data analysis, needs to be plausible so that the audience of my research can undertake similar research.
Maxwell’s (1992) concept of internal generalization for qualitative research, which is already mentioned in this section, is also important for action research, because the generalization of the outcomes within the institution or community involved and for similar contexts can be recommended. Burns (2010) also suggests that what is found through action research might offer new ideas to other teachers who have similar problems in their own teaching. It can be said, thus, that the generalization of action research refers to the extent to which the outcomes and details of the methodological procedure can contribute to responding to the interests of other teachers or researchers in similar contexts. As mentioned already, the aim of this research is a pedagogical development not only for me, but also for other teachers, and thus it adopts Maxwell’s internal generalization as one of the quality criteria.
In qualitative research, dependability is used for reliability, which relates to the consistency of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). While this can be checked by peers, it is often difficult to find people who can undertake this role, as data analysis or observations, for example, is a time-consuming process (Dörnyei, 2007: 61). In this research, it is difficult to ask my colleagues or other teachers to check data because the
findings gained from data coding and text analysis can be checked by the supervisors of this research.