Los Centros Comerciales a nivel Latinoamericano

Research credibility issues, particularly ensuring the reliability and validity of this thesis, were treated as important concepts for attaining rigor and trustworthiness of the research findings (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers 2002; Mayan 2009; Rossman & Rallis 2012). This is because the truth uncovered in a qualitative research is relative, based on the subjectivity of a researcher’s perspectives (Kuhn 1962). This eventually led to sceptical views in regard to the objectivity of any method used in the qualitative research (Patton 2002). For instance, Smith (1984) contends that the concepts of reliability and validity that are commonly applied in quantitative research should be revisited in the qualitative research due to interpretive views of what constitutes a reality. This could be explained in terms of multiple paradigms employed in the qualitative research, in which Rolfe (2006) argues that there is no standard criteria for judging quality and rigor in qualitative research.

Moreover, the application of the realism paradigm in this thesis has guided the researcher to be aware that there is a real world to explore in order to further understand the real meaning of the phenomenon investigated, in spite of the fact that the reality may be imperfectly understandable (Healy & Perry 2000) and to expect challenges to articulate the trustworthiness of this research in a condensed form (Wigren 2007). Having realised this setback, Kirk and Miller (1986) suggested that the objectivity of a piece of qualitative

research should be assessed from both reliability and validity of the study undertaken.

Generally, the issues of attaining validity and reliability within qualitative research are as important as within quantitative research, though the way of doing this might be relatively different (Brock-Utne 1996). Further, scholars suggested that the term credibility and trustworthiness are frequently adopted and more applicable in the qualitative research instead of terms validity and reliability in the quantitative research (Lincoln & Guba 1985;

Guba & Lincoln 1989; Long & Johnson 2000; Winter 2000). The latter terms are essentially embedded in a positivist epistemology (Golafshani 2003) rather than concerned with subjective reality of ‘truth’ in the post-positivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln 1989;

Winter 2000).

Additionally, the application of different paradigms and subjective views in studying a specific phenomenon in qualitative research would likely require different criteria for each social setting (Trochim 2001). Qualitative researchers were advised to select a set of systematic tests or standard of research quality which is clear and uncontested in order to enhance rigor and avoid any damaging aspect of conducting qualitative research (Mayan 2009; Rossman & Rallis 2012). In this respect, the evaluation of research credibility and trustworthiness in the qualitative research emphasizes four key criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Morse et al. 2002). These criteria are reflected to internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity, respectively, in quantitative research (Nastasi & Schensul 2005). Table 4.2 lists the analogous quantitative criteria and the proposed criteria for assessing the credibility that was adopted from Trochim (2001) and Lincoln and Guba (1986) for this thesis. Several strategies of addressing validity, reliability and objectivity in this thesis will be discussed in the following section.

Table 4.2: Four Criteria of Trustworthiness Concept Traditional

Criteria

Alternative Criteria Description

Internal Validity Credibility The results of qualitative research are credible or believable from the perspective of the research participants

External Validity Transferability The results of qualitative research can be generalised and transferred to other contexts or social settings.

Reliability Dependability The results of qualitative research can be replicated and modified (enhanced) in other research contexts.

Objectivity Confirmability The degree to which the results of qualitative research could be confirmed or corroborated by others.

Source: Adopted from Trochim (2001) and Lincoln and Guba (1985).

4.8.1 Addressing Research Credibility and Transferability

The concept of validity in this qualitative research in this thesis was tested by addressing two issues: internal validity and external validity. As described in Table 4.2, internal validity (research credibility) places emphasis on the ability of the researcher to ensure there is a good match between researchers’ data and the theoretical frameworks developed in the research (Bryman 2008; Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2011). More importantly, the implementation of research credibility in this thesis was to ensure that the participants’

views fit with the researcher’s reconstruction and findings (Wigren 2007). Therefore, several strategies were conducted by the researcher in order to enhance the credibility of this thesis. One such strategy is through the implementation of a systematic coding process that follows a pattern matching strategy as proposed by Yin (2009). Through this process, the researcher made a comparative analysis to see any supporting or contradictory views between the themes or subthemes that emerged in the analysis and the existing themes or constructs determined in the review of literature, initial conceptual framework as well as findings in the preliminary study (Eisenhardt 1989). The respondent or member validation is another strategy employed to establish the credibility of this thesis is thorough (Bryman 2008). The researcher sought opinions or confirmation from his academic colleagues, experts and participants to ensure there was a correct interpretation of the research findings and others’ perspectives.

The external validity (research transferability) questions the degree to which the research findings can be generalised to other social settings, specifically in relation to the

application of findings to other contexts in a wider population as well as to some broader theory (Winter 2000; Yin 2009). The qualitative methodology realism paradigm has been criticised for lacking statistical generalisation compared with survey research methods in quantitate research (Yin 2009). Nevertheless, Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) argue that the application of the qualitative-realism approach is rich in analytical generalisations, specifically through thematic analysis as well as rich description of the findings that commonly deal with purposively small selected samples (Bryman 2008). To realise this, the researcher has adopted purposive sampling as recommended by Cavana et al. (2001) in which this thesis is focusing on Bumiputera entrepreneurs in the technology-based industry. Additionally, the researcher would ensure that the evidence of findings reported in this thesis is rich enough for others to apply (Miles & Huberman 1994; Bryman 2008), specifically based on theories and previous studies that provide rich explanations for the researcher to compare the generated findings with theoretical ideas by using a replication logic strategy. Lastly, the research has employed an embedded ‘multiple industry-multiple sample’ design (Yin 2009) where the participants comprised entrepreneurs from various technology-based industries such as IT and Biotechnology, government agencies and academics.

4.8.2 Addressing Dependability

Research dependability in this research is defined as the demonstration of research process or operations that can be replicated with the same results (Yin 2009). The researcher has carefully elaborated which qualitative procedures have been used, specifically the research design conforming to the selected research paradigm as proposed by Cavana et al. (2001) and employing a specially designed case study database using all original data from interviews and other sources as suggested by Yin (2009). In addition, other strategies to enhance research dependability employed in this thesis were:

a) The design of an interview guide as recommended by Flick (2009) was adopted for both stages to ensure all participants underwent the same procedure during the interview sessions;

b) The methods of data collection, as described precisely in section 4.3

c) The organisation and preparation of data analysis were in line with steps suggested by Creswell (2009), whereby the coding process was implemented through the application of NVivo software using a technique as recommended by Gibson and Brown (2009).