Reliability and validity
Critical realism argues that knowledge, and therefore research findings, is interpretive and constructed and should be considered as a representation of the social world rather than a final truth (Danermark et al., 2002). Therefore, assessing the validity and reliability of the research in the epistemological context of critical realism, relies on the
128 discussion about the credibility and plausibility of the analysis7. In qualitative research the reliability of findings is assessed by whether the processes used for the analysis is considered replicable (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000). In this sense, I made sure that I provided a detailed description of the procedures I used to develop themes/strategies and typologies as well as a full list of codes. The use of Computer Aided Qualitative Analysis, in this case with NViVO, is a further factor that enables the replicability of the coding process.
In addition, in reporting and discussing my findings I made sure I referred to the specific context of the research study and its sample and did not generalise to any external population such as the South Asian population in the UK, or young British Muslims in the UK. While qualitative findings are by definition not subjected to generalization in statistical terms (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000), there were also limitations related to the nature of the quantitative sample achieved. In my discussion about the survey findings in Chapter 6, I took into account that the sample was not randomly selected and therefore not statistically representative.
The researcher as an outsider
In conducting, analysing and reporting on this research I had to take into account and reflect on the barriers and limitations of being a White European woman and therefore an outsider accessing South Asian Muslim communities. I also considered the particular implications of being a woman when interviewing fathers and young men.
Following Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of reflexivity as the condition for ‘situating and historicizing the space of one’s point of view as a scholar and a sociologist’ (Kenway & McLeod, 2004, p.527) this study has taken into account the implications of the social and historical context as the background settings where the data collection took place. Reflexivity involves self-reference and self-awareness which serve to establish the role of distance between researcher as member of society and the researcher as analyst (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p.37). The study’s epistemological framework, critical
7
The reliability is the consistency of the findings and the extent to which the same results could be obtained if the same procedures were replicated. Validity explains how much the data captures what they are designed to measure, thus capacity of the sample to represent the population (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000).
129 realism, also supported reflexivity as it assumes that the production of knowledge is consequence of selection and interpretation.
While conducting the fieldwork and the analysis I tried to keep in mind my position as researcher and outsider. Criticism about white researchers working with ethnic minority groups has suggested that ‘meaningful’ data cannot be elicited because of power differences between respondent and researcher (Haw, 1996). However, I believe, the fact that we all speak from a particular standpoint, that includes our personal experience, upbringing, social settings, history and culture and thus does not necessarily imply that we can only research what is familiar to us. It rather involves taking into account the consequences of the researcher’s positioning in the research itself.
There were differences between the interviews with young people and those with their parents. Young people seemed to be more used to relating to people from different ethnic/religious backgrounds. By contrast I felt, that it was fairly unusual for parents to have people from different background from theirs in the home. In a few instances, family members gathered in the room before the start of the interview looking at me with curiosity and asking many questions not only related to the study but also to my personal background: where I was from, how long I had lived in the UK, where my family was based. My dilemma at that point was whether I should answer the questions and, if so, how. The approach that I took was giving more general answers before the start of the interview and more details afterwards, in order to influence respondents as little as possible. Sometimes I felt people were waiting for my arrival as some sort of unusual event. However, I always felt very welcome: the families prepared food and offered me tea and on some occasions I ate with the participants and stayed in the house long after the end of the interviews. Some of them asked me to stay in touch and to provide them with the findings from the research.
There were some advantages, as well as disadvantages, to being an outsider. The respondents, either young people or parents, soon realised from my accent that I was not from a British background. I felt that having a foreign accent played in my favour and it helped to create a bridge between me and respondents. This was particularly true with parents with poorer English language skills, who told me they felt more comfortable with speaking to someone who was not a native English speaker.
130 Respondents also drew connections between their country of origin and mine, Italy, perceived as similar in terms of the importance of religion, care for the elderly, sense of the family, the emphasis on food and family meals, and a chaotic and corrupted political environment. I felt again, this benefited me as respondents thought that I was able to understand them better and showed me empathy. Another further benefit of not being from the South Asian Muslim community was the possibility of using my status and present myself as a ‘naïve and neutral’ outsider whose main interest was learning from them and listen to what they had to say. The idea of neutrality proved to be important because I was not associated with any of the distinctions between the different ethnic and Muslim groups and thus participants confided in me. This may not have been the case if, for instance, a Pakistani researcher had conducted the interviews with the Indian Muslims or a Shi’a with a Sunni.
Nevertheless, there were also several disadvantages in being an outsider that I had to take into account starting with difficulties in accessing the field and gaining the trust of the interviewees. There were also communication issues which made, sometimes, reciprocal understanding quite difficult. One young girl in Oldham, whose parents refused to take part in the study, said they would not have felt comfortable talking to me. The language barriers were another important limitation which prevented me from carrying out some interviews because I cannot speak Hindi, Urdu or Bengali. I only interviewed parents who had some level of English and could at least understand the questions. In a few instances parents were interviewed with a family member who acted as an interpreter. This had implications for the interview in terms of the clarity, length and particularly, it might have influenced the participants’ answers. However, I knew from the beginning of the research that I had to be flexible because, in some cases, using an interpreter was the only way I had to interview participants. If I used an interpreter I made sure he/she was reporting as close as possible what the respondent was saying. I always addressed my question directly to the respondent as they could usually understand me quite well but were not able to express themselves properly in English. I also made sure it was clear that the conversation was about them and not the interpreter. My general feeling was that the respondents were quite comfortable with speaking in front of an interpreter. One father, who was not particularly fluent in English, asked his wife for help at first. However, during the course of the interview, I realised that he preferred to try to answer himself thus his wife left and at that point I
131 continued to interview him without the wife being present. Even though her absence affected the length of the interview I felt the husband put a lot effort into answering the questions and explaining himself the best he could. Sometimes the interaction between family members, such as husband and wife, during the interview provided relevant contextual information about family members and relationships. On more than one occasion, I managed to carry out the interview myself even if the English language skills of the respondent were not so good.
Visual methods were another way I dealt with the limitations of being an outsider and the photographs enabled me to prioritise the perspectives of young people.
Finally, I have to point out that my position changed throughout the conducting of the fieldwork and my initial feeling of being an ‘outsider’ gradually reduced as I became more confident in my understanding of the different cultural norms and religious values in the families.