Las Redes en la gestión del Conocimiento

While the rigour of quantitative research design is evaluated using reliability, validity, and generalisability (Winter, 2000), for qualitative designs trustworthiness and authenticity have been suggested to be the main criteria to evaluate its quality (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Additionally, some methodologists have provided evaluation criteria for ‘their’ methodology in particular. In this section the criteria by Guba and Lincoln for qualitative research in general, as well as the specific criteria by Charmaz (2014) for constructivist Grounded Theory will be discussed.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested the use of trustworthiness to evaluate qualitative research, which contains four items: transferability, credibility, dependability and confirmability. Trustworthiness focuses on the worth of the research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). A few years later, when doing a fourth generation evaluation (Guba and Lincoln, 1989), they added to these the criteria of authenticity: fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity. Authenticity focuses on the degree of fair representation of different realities as perceived by the participants of the study (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). As fourth generation research aims to evaluate a process with stakeholders, find consensus between stakeholders, and make an agenda to enhance what is being evaluated, catalytic and tactical authenticity are aimed at changing practice and evaluating this change (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). As the aim of this thesis was to understand practice rather than change it, catalytic authenticity and tactical authenticity are beyond the scope of this thesis. All other criteria, however, are relevant to evaluating the rigour of a constructivist Grounded Theory study. Therefore, an

93

overview of these criteria will be given, as well as optional techniques to enhance the rigour of a research study.

Trustworthiness includes four criteria (Lincoln and Guba, 1985):

 Credibility looks at whether the findings match the constructed realities of the participants, and this can be enhanced by, for instance, member checks, prolonged data collection, and triangulation of data.

 Transferability has to do with the reader being able to interpret the findings in relation to the extent of their transferability to other situations. This can be enhanced through, for instance, thick description of the context, participants, and the research process.

 Dependability focuses on the quality of the methodology, and can be enhanced by adhering to the suggested characteristics of the chosen methodology and providing a clear and in-depth description of the research process and methods used.

 Confirmability ensures the findings are based on the data. This can be strengthened by providing logical interpretations, as well as referring to the data and using quotations.

The first three criteria of authenticity views (Guba and Lincoln, 1989) are also relevant in relation to this study:

 Fairness focuses on the degree to which different views and perceptions are presented within the process. This can be strengthened through data collection over a long period and identifying different perceptions on the topic under study.

 Ontological authenticity includes how perceptions and views of participants evolve and develop over time. This can be enhanced via testimonies of participants throughout the process.

 Educative authenticity looks at participants appreciating and understanding each other’s perceptions, which can be strengthened via evaluations throughout the research process.

These criteria are developed as being parallel to the criteria for quantitative research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Guba and Lincoln, 1989; 1994). However, the authors do explain the constructivist basis for the criteria, and therefore place these constructivist criteria opposite the positivist criteria (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Nonetheless, there is a quest for

94

terms that are not necessarily related and linked to those used for quantitative research, but are developed independently within their own philosophical paradigms (Whittemore, Chase and Mandle, 2001; Fossey, et al., 2002). This, however, seems to disregard the explanation given by Guba and Lincoln (1989) concerning the constructivist basis for the development of their criteria.

Guba and Lincoln are not the only publishers of criteria for qualitative research, and Creswell (2013) and Whittemore, Chase and Mandle (2001) published an overview with a number of publications, each with different criteria for qualitative research. Nonetheless, the criteria by Guba and Lincoln seem to be the most used throughout the years (Whittemore, Chase and Mandle, 2001). However, their lists are sometimes represented in different ways, for instance by Holloway and Wheeler (2002) when they list trustworthiness and authenticity as other criteria instead of umbrellas for the other criteria, and by giving just a selection of sub criteria identified by Guba and Lincoln. Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz have all published criteria to evaluate the quality of Grounded Theory research. Since this thesis will follow Charmaz, it seems useful to compare her criteria with those by Guba and Lincoln (1989). The criteria by Charmaz (2014) have been developed from the constructivist paradigm, and include the terms credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness, which partly overlap with Guba and Lincoln (1989). Charmaz (2014) focuses many items towards the analytical process and how the findings resound with the participants’ perceptions, which Lincoln and Guba (1985) covered in the criteria of credibility and confirmability. The main difference is that Charmaz (2014) includes the usefulness and original contribution of the study, whereas Lincoln and Guba (1985) focus mainly on the process and product.

To evaluate the rigour of this study in the discussion chapter, the criteria from Guba and Lincoln (1989) will be used. This is based on an aim for continuity and clarity, as the use of one set of criteria within all academia makes it easier to compare and relate the quality of studies and the thoroughness of how it has been reported. Guba and Lincoln (1994) are mostly used in the literature and therefore provide this continuity. However, the additional foci of Charmaz (2014) on the originality of the research and the usefulness of the findings in everyday practice are also relevant and will therefore also be reviewed in the discussion chapter.

95