IMPORTANCIA DE LAS PRÁCTICAS DE RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL

Merriam (2009, p. 209) states ‘All research is concerned with producing valid and reliable knowledge in an ethical manner’. Validity and reliability are the traditional terms associated with positivist, quantitative research, where ‘reliability’ relates to the consistency and repeatability of the findings, and ‘validity’, is the extent to which an event corresponds to what is intended to be measured and the findings are transferable to other situations (Merriam, 2009). In a qualitative study the aim is to develop a rich and detailed understanding about the experiences of the participants in a particular setting, and the findings are unlikely to be repeatable or directly transferable to other contexts. The methods and criteria for demonstrating that the findings are reliable need to reflect the assumptions and forms of inquiry that are relevant to qualitative research. Cohen et al. (2000) discuss many of the terms used as alternatives to validity in

qualitative research. These include ‘authenticity’ from Lincoln and Guba (1985), ‘understanding’ from Maxwell, and ‘fidelity’ from Blumenfeld-Jones, all of which involve being true to the meanings from the perspectives of participants. Maykut and Morehouse (1994, p. 64) also use the term ‘trustworthiness’ from Lincoln & Guba (1985), which they refer to as the ‘believability of a researcher’s findings.’

Demonstrating the trustworthiness of the findings involves providing an account of the design and processes for carrying out the research and data analysis so that the reader can ‘place confidence in the outcomes of the study’ (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 145).

Cohen et al. (2000) explore criteria for validity or trustworthiness of the data analysis in great detail. They identify the following set of criteria from Maxwell (1992), which I found to be relevant to the processes used in this study:

• providing an account of the research which has factual accuracy, and is not made up, selective, or distorted;

• capturing the meaning, interpretations, terms and intentions that situations and events have for the participants themselves, in their terms;

• developing theoretical constructions to explain the phenomena under study; • ensuring generalisability within specific groups or communities, situations or

circumstances, and beyond, to specific outsider communities, situations or circumstances (external validity).

Grounded theory identifies principles and a systematic process for ensuring the trustworthiness of the analysis and interpretation of the findings, including theory development (Charmaz, 2006). The processes for managing, analysing, coding and interpreting the data in this study are reported in detail in the sections above to

demonstrate rigour and build confidence that the analysis and findings are meaningful. Data are reported as the actual words used by participants to ensure that the reader is provided with a close account of the participant’s perspective. Readers are able to form their own interpretations and to compare these with the researcher’s to consider the plausibility and transferability to other contexts. This is referred to as ‘reader generalisability’ (Merriam, 2009).

Member checks involve sharing the research findings with the participants in the study so that they can comment on whether the findings present a true account of their experiences or a ‘recognisable reality’ (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 147). After an initial reading of all of the interview transcripts, I structured them with headings

representing the interview questions, and used broad themes identified from the analysis to structure the text beneath headings. These semi-coded transcripts were then sent to participants. I offered to meet with participants to discuss the transcript and interpretive themes to ensure that they were happy that the transcript represented an accurate record of the interview and to ask if they would like add further information. Meeting with them to discuss the transcript also allowed me to follow up with questions where I wanted further information or clarification. Another of my aims in meeting was to ensure that the research was useful for the participants, and helped to contribute to their understanding of their practice. This process was undertaken with all of the participants who formed the initial group that were analysed. These participants responded

positively to the transcripts and the interpretative themes, and offered useful feedback. I did not meet with all participants, as some of the participants whose interviews were analysed later in the study, were no longer available to meet, or were not interested in discussing the interview further for a range of reasons, including that some were no longer teaching these courses.

Charmaz (2006, p. 67) describes ‘wrestling with preconceptions’ as an important part of the grounded theory coding process ‘to avoid forcing data into preconceived codes and categories’. Some of my preconceptions include my assumptions about terminology,

Charmaz’s (2006) suggestions for challenging preconceptions and assumptions include achieving familiarity with the phenomenon being studied. During the coding and analysis I maintained a sustained focus on the data over a lengthy period of time, and engaged in regular reading and re-reading of transcripts and documents. The initial coding phase and subsequent discussions with participants were also strategies used in this study for helping me ‘to wrestle with my participants’ frames of reference’

(Charmaz, 2006; p. 68). Taking a reflexive and questioning stance to the data is another way that I used to challenge my assumptions and world view.