Fundamentos ontológicos e históricos del canto

Determining rigor and trustworthiness in a qualitative study has been championed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and expanded by Maxwell (1992) through categorising the validity of study into four specific typologies: descriptive, interpretive, theoretical and generalisability. To William and Morrow (2009), trustworthiness is often a balance

72

between what the participants say and the ways in which the researchers interpret the meaning of words. Making a balance mostly relies on subjectivity and reflexivity, particularly whenever research questions are asked in certain ways (Williams and

Morrow, 2009, Lincoln and Guba, 1985). As Maxwell (1992, p.284) emphasised:

It is possible to construe data as a kind of account… a description at a very low level of inference and abstraction. In this sense, it is sometimes legitimate to speak of the validity of data, but this use is derived from the primary meaning of validity as a property of accounts. In contrast, a method by itself is neither valid nor invalid ... Validity is not an inherent property of a particular method, but pertains to data, accounts, or conclusions reached by using that method in a particular context for a particular purpose. To speak of the validity of a method is simply a shorthand way of referring to the validity of the data or accounts derived from that method.

With this quotation in mind, the means I used to instil rigor included exploring the trust value of the inquiry, and its validity and generalisability, a process that helps to

minimise errors or misunderstandings and misinterpretation of data. I discuss the validity of my study using Maxwell's (1992) four typologies of validity (descriptive, interpretive, theoretical and generalisability) in conjunction with narrative and grounded approach and perspectives.

Descriptive validity in research refers to the accuracy and objectivity of the information gathered where a researcher has collected information or data from

participants by recording and transcribing them accurately. The first questions regarding the validity of the study include whether the participants gave the information they understood or felt was relevant, and did the researcher record them correctly? Descriptive validity pertains to matters for which people have the framework for resolving issues at hand (Maxwell, 1992). As stated earlier, constructivist grounded theory maintains that the resulting analysis and theory can be derived from the

interpretive portrayal given by the participants and interpreted by the researcher, even though that may not be precise information. This process, which involves conducting interviews and interacting with participants, focuses on meaning expressed through language and gestures as being critical to understanding human behaviour (Blumer, 1969). To make sense of and to understand the participants’ associated meanings, I

73

focused on making sense of the participants' meanings within the context of the information they provided (Charmaz, 2006).

While descriptive validity deals with the accuracy of reporting the facts about the study, interpretive validity is mainly required to develop participants’ data through

meaningful interpretation. Interpretive validity is concerned with the intentions, beliefs, thoughts and feelings of the people whose lives are presented in the accounts (Maxwell, 1992). This process, which is grounded in the words, concepts and language of the people being studied, is viewed by Maxwell (1992) as an inextricably important element of data collection in the qualitative study. Although it is hard to measure the validity of research, the use of scientific validity, particularly in studies about refugees, is

significant. Ellis et al. (2007) warned researchers that any study that lacked scientific validity, which is a prerequisite to research, may lead to false conclusions,

misunderstandings and above all, harmful practices or interventions.

Although interpretive validity is viewed as an unavoidable process in data collection and interpretation, theoretical validity in qualitative research is whether the theory derived adequately explains and is supported by all the data and is credible and

defensible. (Winter, 2000). This process was significant in explaining how I conducted my study about South Sudanese parenting practices and experiences in Australia by describing their accounts and interpreting the phenomena. According to Maxwell (1992), the previous two types of validity depend on consensus, while theoretical validity differs, as it goes beyond concrete description and interpretation to address the theoretical constructs that a researcher has developed during the study process, which mostly referred to either physical events or mental constructions (Maxwell, 1992). This understanding is critical in describing and interpreting participants’ accounts by

combining both description and interpretation of the phenomena, a process which was discussed earlier.

The final aspect for evaluating validity is generalisability, as qualitative studies are means of making sense of the world and human experiences. Generalisability is very significant in defining the degree to which the data collected during the study are based on a sample so that it represents the outcomes to be obtained from the general

population at best or as a minimum from other members of that same sub-group from whom the data was drawn and documented. According to Maxwell (1992, p.293),

74

generalisability refers to the extent to which one can extend the account of a particular situation or population to persons, times or settings other than those directly studied. This limited understanding is unique to qualitative studies since qualitative studies are not designed for systematic generalisation to the wider population (Maxwell, 1992).

Despite these theories and conceptual framework, it is always challenging when conducting research with refugees or cultures that are unfamiliar with Western

theoretical frameworks and concepts. There are always shortcomings in these processes, particularly for generalisability where the account finalised by the researcher from interviews may be drawn from a small sample of the population or where a researcher can only draw inferences from what the participants provided or from things that happened at a particular time (Flick, 2004, Maxwell, 1992). As Maxwell stated, an account based on interviews may be a descriptively, interpretively and theoretically valid account of a person’s actions and perspectives in that interview, but may miss other aspects of that person’s perspectives that were not expressed in the interview and this can easily lead to false inferences about his or her actions outside the interview situation (p.294).

However, the probabilities of making false generalisations in this study were minimised by using what Henwood and Pidgeon (1992) referred to as ‘the importance of fit’, which implies that the theme or analytical categories offered by the researcher must fit the data and this is demonstrated by the researcher writing clear and explicit accounts of how these categories evolved. Secondly, the ‘integration of theory’ applies: for this, I discussed the relationship between data analysis and the degree to which the data can be integrated or generalised (Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992). The other criterion of

Henwood and Pidgeon (1992) that I used to minimise the possibility of false

generalisation is ‘reflexive’ which requires a researcher to acknowledge and account for their own trustworthiness in the documentation of the study.

As stated previously, for this study I conducted individual and focus group interviews with South Sudanese women, men and youth as well as attending community activities and events to gain a comprehensive overview of their parenting practices and

experiences in Australia. As an insider and through my personal engagement with South Sudanese as a community member, leader and professional educator, counsellor and health worker, I have gained a rich contextual understanding of their experiences, which

75

I used to balance out the subjective influences (Flick, 2004). I have also constantly checked my interpretation and analysis of the data collected through the interviews and focus groups against my contextual knowledge, experiences and previous studies, thus enhancing the accuracy and consistency of the data. Support and guidance from my supervisors throughout the data collection and writing stages were also very helpful. Most importantly I have allowed the participants' voices to take the lead throughout the analysis process.