Elementos identitarios de las mujeres negras de Sardi

Polkinghorne (1988) argues that the exploration of human experience cannot be evaluated using the same systems and rigour that are applied to other scientific research. According to Lieblich et al. (1998) the traditional criteria used to evaluate quantitative research, that is, reliability, validity and generalisability, contradict the nature of narrative inquiry data which can be “read, understood, and analysed in extremely diverse ways” (Lieblich et al., 1998, p. 171).

‘Validity’ refers to how truthful or representative of reality research findings are and is therefore not suited to qualitative research which acknowledges the existence of multiple realities (Braun & Clarke, 2013). As an alternative, ‘trustworthiness’ is often referred to when judging methods of data collection and analysis in qualitative research (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

132

Mishler (1990) proposed that “focusing on trustworthiness rather than truth displaces validation from its traditional location in a presumably objective, nonreactive and neutral reality, and moves it into the social world” (p. 420). Furthermore, he acknowledges that as social norms and practices regularly change, so can judgements of trustworthiness, even if applied to the same findings (Mishler, 1990).

Trustworthiness can be considered in relation to four categories: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability (Shenton, 2004). The trustworthiness of the current research will now be considered according to each of these categories in turn.

5.6.1 Credibility

Credibility refers to the accuracy of research, particularly in relation to the process of data collection and research design (Creswell, 2007). It has been argued that the value or quality of narrative research does not lie in how accurately it represents ‘truth’, but to what extent rich narrative accounts portray the meaning of lived experiences (Creswell, 2007). The findings of narrative research therefore cannot claim to represent true reality (Polkinghorne, 1988) since “storied texts serve as evidence for personal meaning, not for the factual occurrence of the events reported in the stories.” (Polkinghorne, 2007, p. 479).

Yet, in relation to the claims made by narrative researchers, Polkinghorne (2007) argues that “readers should be able to follow the presented evidence and argument enough to make their own judgment as to the relative validity of the claim” (p. 476). The current researcher endeavoured to clearly document the research process, including data collection, analysis and interpretation of the research findings. In addition, several strategies were employed to support the credibility of the current study which will now be discussed.

Firstly, as previously described, the researcher engaged in reflexivity throughout the research process. Creswell and Miller (2000) argue it is important for researchers to acknowledge their biases, assumptions and feelings as their research develops, since these have the potential to shape the research inquiry. As previously discussed in section 5.5, the current researcher regularly evaluated the research using a research journal and practiced reflexivity throughout the research process. Regular supervision sessions with the researcher’s academic tutor also provided opportunities for the researcher to question decisions made throughout the process and identify potential areas of bias.

133

Secondly, member checking has been described as a crucial technique in establishing the accuracy and credibility of research findings (Creswell & Miller, 2000). This involves soliciting participants’ views regarding research findings and interpretations of the data collected (Creswell, 2007). In the current research, the storied narratives were shared with participants. The purpose of this was to ensure that participants felt the storied narrative captured their experiences and reflected their storied selves (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Member checking at this phase of analysis ensured that storied narratives could be revised should participants have wished them to be. This resulted in minor changes being made to the wording in one of the narratives.

In addition, member checking was carried out during the interviews by using clarifying questions to ensure that the researcher was clear on the timeline of the participants’ story and details of different events they described (Creswell, 2007).

Finally, narrative themes identified in the second phase of data analysis were peer reviewed by a colleague and the researcher’s academic tutor. Creswell (2007) argues that peer reviewing provides an external check of the research process. In the current research, peer-reviewers were asked to identify narrative themes they felt emerged from two different storied narratives which were then compared to the narrative themes identified by the researcher.

5.6.2 Transferability

Braun and Clarke (2013) describe transferability as “the extent to which (aspects of) qualitative results can be ‘transferred’ to other groups of people and contexts” (p. 282). Narrative research, as with other forms of qualitative research, is concerned with the detail and meaning of the phenomena being explored (Braun & Clarke, 2013). As described by Polkinghorne (2007), narrative research does not aim to make generalisable claims, but instead “issues claims about the meaning life events hold for people. It makes claims about how people understand situations, others, and themselves.” (Polkinghorne, 2007, p. 476).

As such, the purpose of the current research is not to generalise its findings to the wider population. However, by providing the rich, thick descriptions of participants’ experiences, in addition to the contextual information regarding the research process such as data collection methods, it is hoped that the reader will be able to decide whether they believe the findings are transferable to their own contexts or situations (Shenton, 2004).

134 5.6.3 Dependability

Polkinghorne (1988) defines dependability in narrative research as “the dependability of the data, and validity to the strength of the analysis of the data” (Polkinghorne, 1988, p. 176). Whilst the data gathered in narrative inquiry is highly dependent on the context, it is the responsibility of the researcher to provide a full description of how the data was collected in order to advance the overall trustworthiness of the research (Polkinghorne, 1988).

As previously discussed with regards to trustworthiness, the current researcher has provided details pertaining to the research design and method, details of how the research was carried out and evaluation of the research through reflective appraisal. Appendices Q (page 196), R (page 202), S (209) and T (page 218), also provide details on the process of data analysis from raw data, to storied narratives, to narrative themes. In addition, Appendix H (page 184) includes a timeline of the research procedure, which provides information on when key points in the research, such as data collection, were carried out.

5.6.4 Confirmability

Confirmability relates to measures taken to limit the impact of bias in research, particularly in relation to the neutrality of the data collected (Letts et al., 2007). Letts et al. (2007) suggest that a researcher can enhance the confirmability of their research by engaging in reflective practice throughout the research process. As previously discussed, the researcher kept a research journal throughout all stages of the current study. In writing this thesis, they have also acknowledged their role in the collection and interpretation of the data and endeavoured to provide reflective commentary about the chosen methods and research design throughout. Furthermore, the process of member checking additionally sought to limit the impact of bias during data collection and analysis.

5.7 Critical Evaluation of the Current Research