Intervención judicial

Definitions of research quality have evolved over the years and differ for quantitative and qualitative research. Debates in both areas continue to explore what validity means and how it is determined. Presently, quantitative and qualitative researchers tend to treat issues of research quality differently, even though terms used by both may be similar in name and/or function (Dellinger & Leech, 2007). For quantitative research, an early definition of validity was offered by Garrett (1937 as cited in Osterlind, 2006, p. 93)as “the extent to which it [scores] measures what it purports to measure”. For qualitative research, some researchers argue that validity and reliability is based upon trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1998; Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). Trustworthiness constitutes four key elements: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011).

80

The concept of validity has been addressed sparingly in the mixed methods literature. Unfortunately, it has not been thoroughly discussed or widely considered (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). Early treatments of research quality for mixed methods studies tended to assess the quantitative and qualitative parts of studies separately (Krathwohl, 1993; Newman & Benz, 1998). Since then, there have been attempts to address validity issues related to the separate parts of a mixed methods study as well as the validity issues arising from the mixing of methods in a study (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) argue that because mixed methods research involves combining complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research, assessing the validity of findings is particularly complex. They recommend that validity in mixed research “be termed legitimation in order to use a bilingual nomenclature” (p. 51). Similar ideas are offered by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) who state that mixed methods researchers “should adopt a common nomenclature transcending the separate QUAL and QUAN orientations when the described processes (QUAL and QUAN) are highly similar and when appropriate

terminology exists” (p. 12). Moreover, legitimation in mixed research should be seen as

a continuous process rather than as a fixed attribute of a specific research study.

A typology of mixed methods legitimation was offered by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Onwuegbuzie and Johnson’s model focuses on how well a researcher has integrated or blended the various design and inference aspects of a mixed methods study, therefore specifically addressing the validity of the qualitative and quantitative segments of a mixed methods study with multiple validities legitimation. The model by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson provides meaningful criteria for assessing issues associated with mixed methods research and the inferences associated with that research.

The types of legitimation for my study involve five aspects: sample integration legitimation, inside-outside legitimation, strength maximization/weakness minimization legitimation, paradigmatic mixing legitimation, and multiple validities legitimation (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006).

81

Sample integration legitimation

This refers to the degree to which a mixed methods researcher makes appropriate conclusions, generalizations, and meta-inferences from mixed samples (combination of quantitative and qualitative samples). This legitimation type applies to situations in which a researcher wants to make statistical generalizations from the sample participants to a larger target population (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). For the current study, a concurrent parallel design was employed in which inferences made from quantitative data yielded by large purposive samples were integrated with inferences made from qualitative data arising from a smaller subset of these samples.

Inside-outside legitimation

This refers to the extent to which the researcher accurately understands, uses, and

presents the participants’ subjective insider views (emic) and the researcher’s objective

outsider view (etic). An important strategy for obtaining a justified insider viewpoint is member checking or participant review (i.e., have group members or participants assess

the researcher’s interpretations) (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). For the current study,

this legitimation type was built through member-checking by giving the participants the opportunity to confirm or challenge the transcriptions of what they had said. I also discussed the research findings with my supervisors and my PhD colleagues in the Institute of Education, Massey University to identify and resolve misinterpretation, unconvincing explanation, and research bias. In addition, I asked peers to review interview transcripts.

Strength maximization/Limitation minimization legitimation

This refers to the extent to which the weakness from one approach can be compensated by the strengths from the other approach. Mixed methods research is in the optimal position for maximizing this form of legitimation because the researcher is able systematically to design a study that combines two or more methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Abbas Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). The current study employed both quantitative and qualitative data because the purpose was to not only identify, but also

82

to understand the relationship between teachers’ participation in PD and changes in

perceived levels of their self-efficacy (see Section 3.3 for more details).

Paradigmatic/philosophical legitimation

This refers to the degree to which the mixed methods researcher explains his or her mixed methods paradigm. Most popular paradigms or worldviews in mixed methods research are pragmatism, transformative, dialecticalism, and critical realism (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). As has been explained in Section 3.2, the theoretical paradigm that informs the current study is pragmatism. The pragmatic epistemological view is applied in this study by realizing that the participants’ perceptions of good quality PD (TSGs), and the relationship between teachers’ participation in PD and changes in their perceived levels of self-efficacy came from both their own experiences and from interactions with other teachers.

Multiple validities legitimation

This refers to the extent to which all relevant research strategies are utilized and the research can be considered high on the multiple relevant validities. The key point is that the relevant mixed legitimation types are addressed and achieved, including in the integration phase. In addition, one should ask to what extent is the whole greater than the sum of its parts (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006).