Estatuto de Protección del Consumidor.

Validity and generalisability criteria for constructionistlconstructivist inquiry and PAR differ from those encountered in mainstream or conventional positivist research (Lather, 1 99 1 ; Ristock & Pennell, 1 996; Stiles, 1 993). Constructivistlconstructionist research's epistemological shift of focus from a singular, replicable and generalisable truth (as in positivist research), to that of understanding, multiple truths and the construction of knowledge itself, entails a shift in criteria for conceptualising and assessing validity and generalisability.

Literature regarding social constructionist approaches to community empowerment (Lather, 1 99 1 ; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Ristock & Pennell, 1 996) distinguishes between two types of validity from which the present investigation has drawn. The first type of validity refers to the ability to "produce findings that are in agreement with theoretical or conceptual values" or in other words to "produce accurate results and to measure what is supposed to be measured" (Sarantakos, 1 998). This is often referred to within qualitative research literature as "trustworthiness" (Lather, 1 99 1 ; Stiles, 1 993 ; Thomas, 2000b). The second type of validity is more concerned with the ethics of and power relations within the research process (Lather, 1 99 1 ; Ristock & Pennell, 1 996). Are the processes and outcomes agentic or empowering for the participating individuals and communities? Both types of validity relate to the overall value and integrity of the research in that the fonner is aimed at ensuring accuracy, whilst the latter's objective is to ensure community benefits, at the same time taking into account knowledge­ power relations within processes designed to generate theory claims.

Lather (Lather, 1 99 1 ) proposes three categories of validity (construct, face and catalytic validity) that are consistent with social constructionist (Lincoln & G uba, 2000) approaches to inquiry. The first two of these correspond to the first type of validity identified above - the 'accuracy' or 'trustworthiness' of the research. Construct validity requires that the researcher recognise and confront the theoretical traditions within which she is operating and be willing to change them. This requires a "systematised reflexivity" (Lather, 1 99 1 ) or a self-critical attitude about how one's own perceptions affect the research design and the weak points of the theoretical tradition within which it is located. Lather's second category is "face validity". Its purpose is to ensure that the infonnation gathered reflects the diversity of voices among participants and "rings true" (Ristock & Pennell, 1 996) or resonates with their experiences. Validity is enhanced by diversity of opinions that overlap, the overlapped areas being the most 'valid' or 'saturated' (Labonte, 1 996a). Face validity is operationalised by "recycling description, emerging analysis and conclusions back through at least a sub sample of respondents" (Lather, 1 99 1 , p.67) to ensure it makes sense and resonates with par:icipants. Agreements about what may be accepted as truth may eventuate as a result of dialogue or negotiation between members of the same research community (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Face validity is related to construct validity, for a theoretical orientation that is inconsistent with the research material will most likely fail to produce findings that resonate with the experience of the participants.

However Lather (Lather, 1 99 1 ) has also pointed out that the possibility of encountering false consciousness, (I prefer the term 'unagentic subject positions'), amongst research participants can create a limit on how useful member checks are in establishing the trust worthines.s of data. "Thus an analysis which only takes account of actors perceptions of their situations could result in research being wrongly termed invalid" (p.68). One answer to this is to include participants within the research from a range of subject positions, thus extending the number of saturation points (overlapping of research data) or view points. Another is for the researcher (as co­ participant) to include her own critical analysis in the research fmdings, and to make this visible to participants (Ri stock & Pennell, 1 996). This way dominant ideologies within communities come to be reflected as partial knowledges.

Another effective strategy for dealing with some of the dilemmas and challenges posed In obtaining face validity is "triangulation" (Janesick, 2000; Ristock & Pennell, 1 996). It encompasses the fore mentioned idea of expanding the range of subject positions from which the data is viewed. Ristock and Pennell (Ri stock & Pennell, 1 996) define triangulation as:

[the use of multiple methods] in order to obtain more thorough coverage of a subject by viewing it from different angles. This can be achieved in two ways: by using different methods for different questions about the same topic, or by using different methods to explore the same sets of questions (p.5 I ).

Face (and construct) validity may be enhanced by the triangulation of multiple methods, data sources, and theoretical perspectives.

Lather's (Lather, 1 99 1 ) third category of validity "Catalytic validity" is achieved when research participants and the broader community affected by the research feel energised or re-orientated in some way by the project. The argument for catalytic validity lies not only within the recognition of the reality altering impact of the research process, but also in the desire to consciously channel this impact so respondents gain self understanding and ultimately self determination through research participation" (p.68). This final category of validity relates more to the capacity building objective of the investigation and as such is more strongly associated with the community development methods employed to increase agency with the women' s advocacy group. The impact of these methods on group members and the wider community are discussed in the following chapter as they are part of the research data.

Rather than referring to the generalisability of research, social constructionist approaches to research emphasise "transferability" (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000b; Guba & Lincoln, 1 989).

Transferabi lity refers to the extent to which the research results are transferable to other populations. Unlike generalisability (which aims to neutralise the effects of the research contexts and is premised on absolutist norms) transferabi lity is relative, taking contextual conditions into account. The transferability of research results is contingent upon the degree to which salient or the most noticeable conditions match or overlap (Guba & Lincoln, 1 989). The use of "thick description" by researchers is important in establishing transferability, making transparent the limitations of the context, the shifting dimensions of the research and the particular biases of the researcher/so Interpretations are therefore made with some "tentativeness" (Stiles, 1 993). Investigators do formulate general interpretations and theories, but they do not claim that these will hold in all cases or that they can specify definitively when such formulations will hold or not hold. With respect to establishing transferability, the onus is on the constructivist researcher to provide "as complete a database as humanly possible in order to facilitate transferability judgements on the part of others who may wish to apply the study to their own situations" (Guba & Lincoln, 1 989, p. 242).

Ensuring the validity (and thus transferability) of the research results posed different challenges throughout each phase of the investigation. For example, some of the underlying challenges to face validity encountered in the work with WAG were due to members' lack of ability to participate at times and thereby validate research results. These were different to those challenges to face validity that occurred with the Canadian based work, in which getting participants to check and verify transcripts was problematic. However, the most substantial challenges to validity (face, construct and catalytic) were encountered in the New Zealand component of the research with WAG. These challenges were in part connected to the participatory and empowering aims of the women's advocacy initiative and were emergent as the project progressed. These are treated as research findings and are located in chapter seven. Otherwise, my efforts to ensure validity within the research design are iterated under the sections ' data management' and 'data analysis'. The issue of generalisability or transferability is dealt with more generally throughout the investigation. Effort is made to maintain transparency throughout and to provide as full a data set as possible, thus facilitating assessments regarding the transferability ofthe research results by those with an interest in them.