FICHA TECNICA DEL SONDEO DE OPINION SOBRE METROGAS S.A E.S.P.

Credibility (comparable with internal validity) means that the participants are able to recognize the meaning that they themselves gave to a situation or condition and the ‘truth’ of the findings in their own social context (Holloway & Wheeler 2010:303). Credibility addresses the issue of ‘fit’ between respondents’ views and the researcher’s representation of them (Schwandt 2001).

In order to ensure credibility, researchers must ensure that the findings are at least compatible with the perceptions of the people under study and they need to demonstrate, in one or more ways, that the research was designed to maximize the accuracy of identifying and describing whatever is being studied, especially as judged by the groups of people being studied. In this study, credibility was demonstrated through the use of the following strategies:

• Prolonged engagement

According to Polit and Beck (2012:599), prolonged engagement is an important step in establishing rigour and integrity in qualitative research. Prolonged engagement involves investing sufficient time in the data collection process so that participants feel enough confidence and trust in the researcher to allow for adequate study of the cultural context and adequate checks for misinformation and distortions. Through prolonged engagement, saturation of important categories is ensured.

The researcher spent considerable time interacting with the student nurses during appreciative and individual interviews in order to develop a rich understanding of their positive core experiences, cultivated appreciative perceptions of the nursing profession and the participants’ lived experiences of being involved in AI until data saturation. The time spent during data collection was sufficient to establish rapport with the participants.

• Member checks

Member checks involve the process of asking participants to review and react to study data, emerging themes and conceptualizations (Polit & Beck 2012:599). Through member checking, feedback is given to the participants and their reaction to

data and findings is obtained. The researcher can also obtain feedback regarding the participants’ response to his/her interpretation of the data from them as individuals (Holloway & Wheeler 2010:305). According to Shenton (2004:68), the checks relating to the accuracy of data may take place on the spot and at the end of data collection. During the discovery stage of appreciative interviews, the participants and the researcher checked the accuracy of the data on the spot and after the data collection. The participants interviewed each other and they were requested to check with partners if the highlights that mattered most to them had been captured. With regard to the individual interviews, the researcher gave the participants the interview transcripts to read and indicate if their words matched what they actually intended. In addition, they were given a summary of the researcher’s own interpretation of their words to check and verify the accuracy of the reflection of the participants’ recorded views.

• Triangulation

The purpose of triangulation is to overcome intrinsic bias that comes from single- method, single-observer and single-theory studies (Anderson 2010:141; Polit & Beck 2012:599). Denzin (1989 cited in Holloway and Wheeler 2010:308) identified several types of triangulation but for the purpose of this study, data and method triangulation were the forms of triangulation that were used to also enhance credibility.

Data triangulation refers to the use of multiple sources of data for validating conclusions. The three types of data triangulation involve time (collecting data on the same phenomenon at different times, day or year), space (collecting data on the same phenomenon in multiple sites for cross-site consistency) and person (collecting data from different types or levels of people). Method triangulation is described by Polit and Beck (2012:599) and Holloway and Wheeler (2010:309) as the use of multiple methods (two or more) to collect data about the same phenomenon in one study.

Data were collected in three nursing education institutions (multiple sites) on 3rd and

4th year student nurses who were studying nursing at diploma and bachelor’s degree

level. The researcher collected data on different dates and times allocated by the management of the nursing college and universities. This was done to minimize and

understand any differences/biases that might be introduced by the participants in each institution and to help examine the consistency of the data and interpretations over time.

In addition, the researcher opted to collect a blend of qualitative and quantitative data by means of various methods and techniques including questionnaires, interviews and participants’ created documents. These enabled her to understand the phenomenon more comprehensively. Different techniques were also used to balance each other out; individual and group interviews as well as short engagement and long engagement when collecting quantitative and qualitative data respectively.

• Audit trails

An audit trail is a detailed report of the decisions made before and during the research process and a description of the research process (Holloway & Wheeler 2010:311). Through an audit trail, others can examine the researcher’s documentation of data, methods, decisions and the findings. The researcher kept a paper trail of the description of the setting, location and people, decisions regarding research methodology and rationale, the changing context within which the research occurred and how the changes affected the way the research was approached, excerpts from interviews/ transcripts and the procedures for checking and rechecking the data throughout the study in order to examine the data collection and analysis procedures and also to make judgment about the potential for distortion or bias. Central to the audit trail is reflexivity in which researchers keep a self-critical account of the research process, including their internal and external dialogue. The researcher reflected on her own preconceptions, actions, feelings as well as conflicts that were experienced and documented them.

• Thick description

According to Holloway and Wheeler (2010:310), thick description helps to establish the truth value of the research and it is linked to the audit trail. It involves a detailed description of the process, context and people in the research including the meaning and intentions of the participants’ and researcher’s conceptual developments (Holloway & Wheeler 2010:310). Shenton (2004:69) assert that without thick

description of the phenomenon, it is difficult for the reader of the research to determine the extent to which the overall findings embraced the actual situation. Thick description necessitates prolonged engagement in the setting (Holloway & Wheeler 2010:311). Prolonged engagement in the setting and immersion in the data were discussed in the previous paragraphs.

In addition, the individual interviews were audio-recorded to document the findings and to serve as a backup method for the enormous amount of data that emerged during the discussions. Data from information-rich participants were collected until data saturation was reached. The researcher provided a detailed report of the rich description and explication of the research phenomenon in order to provide sufficient information to permit judgments about contextual similarity.

• Debriefing sessions and peer review

The researcher held debriefing sessions with the supervisors of the study during which alternative approaches were discussed and flaws in the proposed course of action were brought to the researcher’s attention. These discussions widened the vision of the researcher and assisted her to identify own preferences and biases (Shenton 2004:67).

Peer review refers to the critical evaluation of the study design, data collection and analyses by a qualified outside researcher (Shenton 2004:67). The researcher presented written summaries of the data categories, the themes that had emerged and the interpretations of the themes that she had made for peer review.