Línea investigadora del creg en reactores de dos zonas (RLFDZ)

For Moustakas, that which makes the heuristic process ‘valid’ is the heart of experience as captured or expressed through articulated meaning. Historically, qualitative research approaches have been criticised with regard to the lack of credibility and rigour (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Sandelowski, 1993). Tobin & Begley (2004) have highlighted that it is important therefore that research undertaken within this perspective is able to demonstrate academic rigour and integrity. A challenge of the heuristic process is its lack of definition. It adopts a ‘what works’ way of thinking and that can be unsettling for some. Without having pre-determined outcomes the methodology’s benchmark as to what is ‘right’ is framed by an apprehension of that which works best. Moustakas stated that the judgment made as to the veracity of meaning derived from experience belongs uniquely to the researcher for they alone are the only person who has undergone the heuristic method from the start. Heuristics is therefore not so much about external ‘proof’ as it is about the internal encounter.

Finlay, (2006) states that the concepts of reliability, validity, and generalisability are commonly used within a positivist research framework for both conducting and assessing quantitative research. She goes on to say that, “…qualitative

researchers contest and reject these positivist concepts”. Critiquing these

concepts Finlay draws attention to the following factors that lead to rejection of these concepts within qualitative research:

Reliability (which is the consistency of the means of data collection) is not an

appropriate criterion in qualitative research as qualitative research does not seek consistent results; it seeks rather the responses of participants at a time, place and in a context- which is highly unlikely to be repeated again.

Validity (the degree to which research measures what it was meant to measure)

the implication here is that, which is being measured has a reality objectively assessed. Qualitative research tends to view such a position as not appropriate. Rather, through use of subjective interpretations the focus is on whose reality is the research study addressing.

Generalisability (extrapolation of findings from the few to the many) is not a

concern of qualitative researchers. Here, the interest is in showing that findings, may and can be transferred or have meaning, or value for others. It is the richness of data not its largesse that is fundamental to appropriate qualitative research. Using or developing criterion to demonstrate trustworthiness or congruence in a piece of qualitative research is therefore important if the criteria of positivism is set aside as inappropriate. The reader of qualitative research should be satisfied that there is rigour and relevance to the work.

To its advantage, qualitative research has a broad range of criterion from which a researcher may choose, or adopt in order to satisfy this aspect of their work, for example, Lincoln & Guba, (1985, 1994); Madill et al (2000) Polkinghorne, (1983). Koch, (1995) argued for “each inquiry determine its own criteria fro

rigour (trustworthiness)” (p, 174). In this vein, Finlay (2006) developed her own

set of criteria (the 5 Cs) that she uses to evaluate the outcomes of any piece of qualitative study:

Findlay’s Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research Clarity-

Does it make sense? Is it coherent?

Credibility-

Do the findings match the evidence? Are they convincing? Are they plausible?

Contribution-

What does it add to the debate and knowledge of an issue/practice? Does it add value to the reader? Does it empower? Does it challenge assumptions? Does it offer guidance for future action?

Communicative resonance

-Are findings adequately powerful, emotional to invite the reader to step inside this world? Do the findings resonate with readers? Do findings challenge? Is there evidence of dialogue with others in testing claims e.g. participants, research supervisors/

Caring

-Is there evidence that the researcher has shown sensitivity and respect for the participant’s safety and needs/ to what extent is the researcher reflexive about the way the findings are explicated within such an interpersonal context? Is there evidence of ethical concerns and concern about impact of research in wider community?

(Adapted from Finlay, 2006)

Koch (1996) suggests that one way of helping to ensure rigour is for the researcher to demonstrate their awareness of the philosophical positions, ontological and epistemological orientations and purposes with regard to the research study and the impact such choices may have on the study undertaken and study congruence. A means of establishing credibility is through the demonstration of the researcher’s understanding of underlying philosophical ideas and the application of the same to the study in question. In this study, the philosophical base has been stated, i.e. the adopted heuristic approach, which is linked to Heidegger’s existential/hermeneutic. This has required guided reading of the literature to explore, encounter, and consequently increase my understanding around some of the metaphysical points raised. It is necessary

that the research endeavour ‘holds’ together so that the philosophical framework is in alignment with the research approach (Annells, 1999).

Methodology is that process whereby insights about the world and about individuals are created interpreted and disseminated. Koch (1996:174) says it a “ …means of recording the way in which a study is accomplished”. For a work to be credible, it needs to be believable. Indeed, Stark & Trinidad (2007) would seem to use credibility and believable as almost synonymous words when describing the outcome of qualitative research findings:

‘ A study is credible when it presents such faithful descriptions or

interpretations of a human experience that the people having that experience would immediately recognise those descriptions or interpretations as their own. A study is also credible when other people can recognise the experience when confronted with it after having only read about it in a study ‘ (2007: 307)

The purpose of this study is to inform nursing education/ practice. It is particularly directed towards, a pathic understanding of nursing- that is to do with feelings, emotions, interactions, meanings and responses which have a symbiotic relationship with compassionate nursing practice. This reference to pathic is derived from van Manen (1997) where, we might understand the connotation as the nurse meets the client/ patient not as eye-to-eye, but heart- to-heart in the very centre of a time of need, or suffering and in doing so supports, and comforts (Annells, 1999). The utility of this research project centres on how useful it is for adding to nursing education and/ or nursing practice. There exists a broad range of criteria by which any phenomenological piece of work may be evaluated or attested as rigorous. For example, by whether it addresses validity issues, how faithful it is to the art of interpretation, does it demonstrate ethics and truth? (Lincoln & Guba, 19; Sandelowski, 1995)

Although the following chapter addresses issues of research method to a greater degree, the following strategies were employed as a means of

addressing these important matters. Following each interview the participant was asked to not only clarify aspects but also verify understandings in the interpretative process. Asking the participant to review the final interpreted data relating to them and to, as it were, challenge the themes for their coherency- would their experience remain the same if the theme identified was removed. For example, ‘Is this what emotional intelligence as a student nurse is really like

for you?’

Journal notes were made and kept during each interview to ensure that I did not miss anything – e.g. body language – tones of voice, use of silence (see van Manen 1990). I also noted in that journal a record of my own experiences as a researcher to track the development of thinking around the topic area, issues highlighted within the conversational interviews and my awareness of personal biases. Etymological sources of words used were traced and identified to ensure that relations to lived experiences being discussed were vital and vibrant with meaning relevant to the participant (van Manen 1997).

Qualitative research approaches do not seek to predict, generalise, or theorise. It aims rather to enhance understanding of certain phenomena and the meaning(s) that individuals attach to these. Such is of value to those who are interested in human experience and particularly within this study how such experiences and meanings contribute to the place of emotional intelligence in nursing students maturation process from neophytes to professionals. As such, studies may contain within themselves the seed for future and other related studies; it is necessary that the methodological approach used be seen to reflect the purpose of the research focus. I would assert that this chapter demonstrates such.