Modificación de los coeficientes reductores o de la edad mínima de acceso

Validity and reliability in qualitative research do not carry the same connotations as in quantitative research, owing to the different worldviews of the two paradigms. The positivists’ view of reality as something detached from the research participants and researcher contradicts the interpretivist notion of reality as socially constructed and, therefore, inseparable from the views of the researcher and research participants and the research context (Bryman, 2004; Creswell, 2003; Gorman & Clayton, 2005; Klein

& Myers, 1999; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Powell & Connaway, 2004; Williams, 2000).

In quantitative research, validity is concerned with the integrity of the conclusions generated from a piece of research, whereas reliability concerns itself with ensuring the results of a study are consistent enough to be replicated and a researcher achieves by spelling out his/her procedures in great detail. Bryman (2004) distinguishes four types of validity: measurement - addresses the question of whether a measure that is derived from a concept really does reflect the concept that it is supposed to be denoting; internal validity which concerns with whether a conclusion that incorporates a causal a relationship between two or more variables holds water;

external validity – addresses whether findings of a study can be generalised beyond the specific research context; and ecological validity which concerns with applicability of social scientific findings to people’s every day, natural social settings.

On the other hand, the alternative to validity and reliability in qualitative study are trustworthiness and authenticity criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 and Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is these two primary criteria that the researcher applied to evaluate truth values of the findings of this study.

4.6.1 Trustworthiness

Denzin and Lincoln (2005) hold that the trustworthiness of qualitative research relates to the value of findings and their authenticity. It addresses the basic question of: “How

can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to?” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.290); whether “you are observing, identifying, or ‘measuring’ what you say are” (Mason, 1996, p.21). This study used the four criteria of trustworthiness proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985), which are analogous to the four quantitative research criteria mentioned above, to ensure the value and authenticity of the findings. These included credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

4.6.1.1 Credibility

Credibility is about how believable the findings are and parallels internal validity in quantitative research. The establishment of the credibility of findings entails both ensuring that research is carried out according to canons of good practice which include validation by respondents and triangulation (Bryman, 2004; Creswell, 2003;

Gorman & Clayton, 2005; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The researcher in this study applied both principles by first giving the interviewees a summary of what would transpire at the end of each interview to seek their consensus and reaffirmation. Then after transcription, the researcher sent the interview transcripts to the research participants for confirmation. For triangulation, the researcher compared the data collected through the interviews with what was in policy documents, technical and annual reports, and any other relevant documentation. She also paid particular attention to the requirements outlined in the Victoria University of Wellington’s Code of Human Ethics (discussed earlier under section 4.4.3.1).

4.6.1.2 Transferability

It is about whether the findings can apply to other contexts and parallels external validity. There are two schools of thought regarding transferabilibility or generalisability of qualitative findings. One school subscribes to the view that it is impossible to generalise qualitative findings owing to the fact that qualitative research typically entails the intensive and in-depth study of a small group or individuals sharing certain characteristics, who are not meant to be representative of a population (Bryman, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Qualitative findings tend to be oriented to the contextual uniqueness and significance of the aspect of the social world being studied and so the researcher cannot predict the

transferability of findings. Instead, findings of qualitative research can be generalised to theory rather than to populations, what Mitchell (1983) calls “the cogency of theoretical reasoning” (Bryman, 2004, p.392). Thus, it is the quality of theoretical inferences that are drawn out of qualitative data that provide for assessment of transferability (Bryman, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Hence, the researcher’s responsibility is “to provide the data base that make transferability judgements possible on the part of potential appliers” (Lincoln & Guba, p.316) which is achieved through providing thick descriptions or rich accounts of the details of phenomenon being investigated.

The other school of thought holds that in qualitative research there can be moderatum generalisations, where aspects of the focus of enquiry “can be seen to be instances of a broader set of recognizable features” (Bryman, 2004, p.392; Williams, 2000, p.

215). The proponents of this view argue that, when generating findings, the researcher draws comparisons with findings by other researchers relating to comparable groups.

They, however, note that moderatum generalisation is limited and somewhat tentative as opposed to the statistical generalisations resulting from probability sampling (Bryman, 2004; Williams, 2000).

The researcher in this study ascribes to the first view that, owing to the limited and purposive nature of sampling, qualitative findings are generalisable not to populations, but to theory. Consequently, she gleaned the qualitative data for its theoretical inferences and ability to provid rich contextual accounts of factors that affected the process of ICT adoption to research communication, as perceived by the participants. Such detailed and rich descriptions make possible transferable judgements on the part of interested parties who can read for themselves and see how they apply to their situation(s).

4.6.1.3 Dependability

This is about the likelihood of the findings applying at other times and parallels reliability. To ensure the results of her research were dependable, the researcher adopted an “auditing” approach which entailed keeping complete records of all phases of the research process – problem formulation, selection of research participants, fieldwork notes, interview transcripts and data analysis decisions in an accessible

manner (Lincoln & Guba 1985). She then used peers as auditors during the course of the research and at the end to establish how far proper procedures were being and had been followed. She also constantly assessed the degree to which theoretical inferences could be justified as she moved along (Bryman, 2004).

4.6.1.4 Confirmability

This parallels objectivity and is concerned with ensuring that the researcher can be seen to have acted in good faith by not overtly allowing personal values or theoretical inclinations to sway the conduct of the research or findings deriving from it (Bryman, 2004). The researcher ensured a proper audit trail of the raw data, analysis notes, reconstruction and synthesis products, process notes, personal notes and preliminary developmental information, was kept throughout by working closely with the supervisors and comparing notes with other PhD. students during her analysis and data presentation (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

4.6.2 Authenticity

There are different types of authenticity that an interpretivist researcher should strive to achieve. First is ensuring fairness (representation of different viewpoints among members of the social setting). Second is ontological authenticity (ensuring research helps members to arrive at a better understanding of their social milieu). Third is educative authenticity which seeks to ensure research helps members to appreciate better the perspectives of other members of their social setting. Catalytic authenticity is fourth and strives to ensure research acts as an impetus to members to engage in action to change their circumstances. Then there is tactical authenticity which seeks to ensure research empowers members to take the steps necessary for engaging in action (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Even though authenticity criteria are said to have certain points of affinity with action research (Bryman, 2004), the researcher in this study tried to achieve certain aspects of authenticity. For example, fairness was achieved through the stratified purposive sampling to ensure different viewpoints were elicited from among members of the social setting. Ontological and educative authenticity were achieved by giving adequate information to the participants about the study and what it hoped to achieve (information sheet) and by member-checking the interview transcripts. This brought

the participants with the reality of their world as perceived by them. Catalytic and tactical authenticity may have been outside the scope of this research, because the choice to implement the findings and recommendations rested with the government of Kenya and research institutions. However, catalytic and tactical authenticities were the ultimate concern of this research whose major concern was to come up with a contextual framework for ICT-enabled research communication by and for researchers in Kenya as a means to greater visibility of the Kenyan research output and participation in the knowledge economy.

4.6.3 Klein and Myers’ seven principles for interpretive research in IS

Along with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria for trustworthiness, Klein and Myers (1999) seven principles for interpretive research in IS were also used to ensure checks and balances in the pursuit of quality assurance. Derived from hermeneutics, phenomenology and anthropology, the seven principles are a response to concerns about quality in interpretive field research, and Klein and Myers (1999) applied them to review three published studies. The authors see them as improving the “plausibility and cogency” of interpretive studies (Klein and Myers, 1999, p.79). These include: