Rigour of the research can be established through the demonstration of the validity and reliability of the research. Care was taken throughout the design phase to ensure that the process demonstrates construct validity, internal validity, external validity, objectivity and reliability. Construct validity requires the researcher to use the correct measures for the concepts being studied. Internal validity demonstrates that certain conditions lead to other conditions and requires the use of multiple pieces of evidence from multiple sources to uncover convergent lines of inquiry. External validity reflects whether or not findings are generalizable beyond the immediate case; the more variations in places, people, and procedures that a case study can withstand and still yield the same findings; the more external validity exists. Techniques such as cross-case examination and within-case examination, along with literature review, help to ensure external validity. Objectivity is the degree of independence from a researcher’s bias. Reliability refers to the stability, accuracy, and precision of measurement. The procedures used are well documented and can be repeated with the same results over and over again. (Yin, 2009; Dooley, 2002; Oates, 2012)
2.4.7.1 Validity
Validity is viewed as being either external, where the focus is on whether the research is generalisable to the construct;or internal, which confirms whether there is a relationship between cause and effect and whether it is causal or not.
According to Sekaran and Bougie (2009), there are methods of ensuring the validity of qualitative research, such as:
1. Supporting generalisations by counts of events
2. Ensuring the representativeness of cases and the inclusion of deviant cases 3. In- depth description of the research.
4. Triangulation that ensures confidence in the result by employing different methods/
sources to get the same results. Multiple perspectives should be used to conduct research. Types of triangulation are (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009, pp. 384-5, Yin, 2009, Oates, 2012, pp.37):
a. Method: several methods for gathering and synthesising data. For data collection interviews, surveys using questionnaires and expert reviews were used.
b. Strategy: In this study, case study, surveys and design and creation strategies were used to conduct the research.
c. Data: data is gathered from multiple sources and /or at different times.
d. Researcher/investigator: several researchers gather/synthesise data.
e. Theory: employ several theories or perspectives to analyse and report the data.
f. Environment: varies in environmental factors (time, location) and evaluates the impact of the variation. Oates separates these into space and time.
All these methods were incorporated at different stages of the study. The validity of a questionnaire was assessed on content validity, criterion-related validity and construct validity. Content validity is the degree to which the questions in the questionnaire give sufficient reporting of the phenomena under study. Criterion-related validity, also known as predictive validity, assesses the ability of the questions to make precise estimations by comparing the data to specified criteria. Construct validity refers to the ability of the questions to measure truly the existence of those constructs they were meant to measure (Saunders et al., 2009).
The research paradigm followed in this research is interpretivism; hence, reference is made to how much trust can be placed in the in research. Trustworthiness is the level of trust that can be placed in the research based on the use of valid methods and techniques derived from literature to measure framework components.
1. External validity is difficult to demonstrate as multiple realities exist and they depend on variable factors; therefore transferability will be demonstrated.
Transferability is the extent to which the research is generalizable to different environments, participants, and time, and depends on the representativeness of the sample studied (Oates, 2012, p. 294). However, environmental aspects such as organisational culture and personal dispositions make it impossible to apply the same process in a different context. Instead, focus is on transferability of the findings to other similar contexts.
2. Internal validity is demonstrated by evaluating the credibility of the research.
Credibility is the degree to which findings are precise, compare to reality and measure it correctly; however, in interpretivist research there are several created realities;
hence, there is no benchmark for testing the results (Oates, 2012, p. 294). Instead, the focus is on the credibility of the research process. Triangulation of methods, strategies and data are used to demonstrate this aspect.
2.4.7.2 Reliability
Reliability ensures that the research process can be followed by other researchers and produce the same results under similar conditions. It can be classified into inter-rater/observer which demonstrates equivalence or parallel forms; or test-retest; these two both test stability and internal consistency which tests homogeneity (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009). The research was done by one researcher; hence, inter-rater/observer reliability is not applicable. The time horizon of the study was cross sectional; no multiple data collection/measures were done, so this rules out test-retest reliability in the study. A single case study was used making it impossible to compare data from a similar content domain, so this rules out parallel forms reliability. In this study internal consistency is demonstrated. A single measurement instrument is distributed to a number of people at the same time to evaluate.
Reliability is usually centred on the repeatability of the study; however, when a social problem is studied it is bound to vary at different times as the influencing conditions evolve.
As such, data collected at different times cannot be similar (Oates, 2012, p. 294; Hevner et al., 2004). Moreover, as the researcher’s involvement impacts on the outcome, therefore different researchers will produce different results. The dependability is demonstrated instead, as it speaks to the research procedure and data recording which allows an audit to be carried out successfully on the research process (Oates, 2012, p. 294; Saunders et al., 2009).
To demonstrate dependability, the following tools and methods were used:
1. The questionnaire was pre-tested with the comments of seven people, and feedback was used to improve the tool.
2. The questionnaires were self-administered to eliminate the bias to please of the participants answering the question
3. Research methods and strategies are clearly documented in Chapters 2, 5 and 6.
2.4.7.3 Objectivity
According to the Merrian Webster dictionary, objectivity “relates to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind.” (Webster, 2015).
Objectivity cannot be demonstrated in this case because the researcher has personal experiences that can influence the interpretation of the collected data. Moreover, the researcher is a member of the community being studied and interacts with participants often.
As such, focus is placed on the demonstrated confirmability of the findings. Given the collected data, summaries and the analysis, another researcher can draw the same conclusions. Another researcher should not necessarily be able to replicate the study, but should be able to assess in detail what was done, why it was done, and how conclusions were deduced (Meyers & Sylvester, 2006).
To demonstrate confirmability, the following tools and methods were used:
1. Clearly outlined methods and processes used for data collection and analysis 2. Use of literature to confirm findings