Favorecimiento de la adopción de nuevos acuerdos

Burrell & Morgan (1979); Kvale (1995) suggest that in any research, issues of the data quality have to be considered and addressed carefully. Maxwell (2013, p. 124) indicated that qualitative researchers typically deal with questions of validity or any particular events and processes that can lead to invalid conclusions. Some of the issues that might arise during a research are addressed below:

 Researcher bias — selection of data that fit the researcher’s existing theory, goals, preconceptions, and the selection of data that ‘stand out’ to the researcher.

 Reactivity — influence of the researcher on the setting or individual cases being studied. The researcher has to try to control for such effects. Thus, the goal should be to minimize variability in the outcome variables arising due to the researcher’s actions or inactions. However, in qualitative research eliminating the actual influences of the researcher is impossible. For example, interview the reactivity/ flexibility for the researcher is impossible because the researcher is part of the world he or she studies.

From a Realist perspective, qualitative research can be evaluated in terms of objectivity, which can be further divided into validity and reliability (Hammersley, 1987). Validity, in this sense, essentially refers to the idea of truth. Thus from the Realist perspective, research results are valid or ‘true’ if they accurately represent the phenomena that they claim to describe or explain. Results are reliable to the extent to which a procedure or method can be repeated by other people, in other places and produces results which are theoretical sound. In other words, a broad definition of validity would be that of

167

167

accuracy, and of reliability, would be that of theoretical or literal replication. Lincoln and Guba (1985, cited in Collis and Hussey, 2009), noted that taking this criteria in cognisance while planning and conducting research is important as it improves the quality of the research.

Validity, reliability and generalisability are mostly associated with positivist research (Kvale, 1995); but are nonetheless concepts that are generally used in order to assess the truth of research in all cases. However, Guba and Lincoln, (1994) write that other terms, which arise from a more natural use of language and can thus be used to determine truth. Lincoln and Guba (1985) concluded that alternative terms that can be used (for judging the quality of qualitative research) are credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability (cited in Hoepfl, 1997). Thus in order to eliminate the threat to quality, qualitative research should be measured against the four criteria presented in Table 3.17 to determine the quality of the research (Collis and Hussey, 2009, p. 182) which are then discussed in detail below.

Conventional Terms (Quantitative) Naturalistic Terms (Qualitative)

Internal validity Credibility

External validity Transferability

Reliability Dependability

Objectivity Conformability

Table 3.17: Comparison of criteria for judging the quality of quantitative and qualitative research

(Source: Hoepfl, 1997, p. 7)

1) Credibility — demonstrates that the research was conducted in such a manner that the subject of the enquiry was correctly identified and described. Credibility can be improved through the researcher involving him/herself in the study for a prolonged period of time, through triangulation (using different sources of evidence), and through peer debriefing by colleagues on a continuous basis. Among those techniques, the

168

168

credibility of this study was enhanced by triangulation of data collection from different sources of evidence such as interviews, observations and documentation.

This researcher considered the triangulation issues in designing and conducting the overall research. Triangulation is a way of enhancing the quality of the research. It can be classified into four categories (Collis & Hussey, 2009; Neuman, 2011; Yin, 2009):

- Data triangulation — this is achieved when data are collected in different times and from different sources. According to Bowen (2009); Robson (2011), data triangulation provides a confluence of evidence by examining information from different methods; and allows researcher to corroborate finding across the methods. This is expected to reduce bias especially in single studies. More-so, protecting the researcher from artificially employing a single source of data (which may lead to bias issue) (Patton, 2002).

- Investigator triangulation — this is achieved when the researcher offers different perspectives, backgrounds, and social characteristics to what is being researched. - Theory triangulation — this is feasible when the research is designed to use the

multiple theory perspectives.

- Method triangulation — this can be achieved through using mixed-methods of data collection and data analysis, or mixed research methods (quantitative and qualitative).

Data triangulation was used in this research. The researcher collected data using three different techniques: semi-structured interviews (main data collection), observations, and documentation data. The last two data collection methods were used to support the main method. Gathering data based on this triangulation allows the researcher to gain a richer understanding of the subject matter from different sources (data triangulation) (Robson, 2011); and to avoid the dangers of bias which might arise from analysing a single source of data. By using different methods, the researcher increases the chances of capturing all relevant data which might have been missed if using interviews only.

2) Transferability — this is concerned with whether the findings can be generalised to another situation. In this research, the researcher cannot guarantee the transferability of the findings but rather can only provide sufficient information that can then be used by

169

169

other scholars to determine whether the findings are applicable to their new situation. Therefore, transferability depends on the degree of similarity between the original situation and the new situation.

3) Dependability — this illustrates that the research process is systematic, rigorous, and well documented. In this study the list of interview questions was prepared in advance; and this ensured that the researcher was consistent during the interviews and that everybody dealt with similar questions. The researcher ensured the consistency of data collected not only by supplementing semi-structured interviews by documentations and observations, in some participating hotels the interviews were conducted with more than one person. The main aim is to ensure the consistency.

4) Conformability — this should be used as a criterion when the study has described the research process fully and it is possible to assess whether the findings flow from the data. The aim is to ensure that the data is neutral of researchers’ interpretation. All the data collected was gathered, recorded meticulously, and used systematically.

The researcher documented all the research processes and procedures, and checked and reviewed the data continuously during the study to improve dependability and the conformity of study findings.