DILLA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Research tools and theory

PHRM7313

PHD SEMINAR REPORT

PhD SEMINAR REPORT

Internal and External validity /trustworthiness/ in qualitative

Research

Prepared by: - Fikru Bedecha Adema.

ID: PH-01/22

Submitted: Kassahun Alemu Gelaye, (Professor of Public Health and

Epidemiology Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Institute of Public
Health, University of Gondar, Ethiopia)

Mar, 11, 2023

Dilla, Ethiopia.
Table of the content
Table of the content...............................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgment...................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................2
1.1 What is Qualitative Research?.....................................................................................................2
1.2 General Characteristics of Qualitative Research..........................................................................2
2. Philosophical and methodological issues in qualitative research:.....................................................3
3. Qualitative Research Design..............................................................................................................5
3.1 Narrative Research......................................................................................................................5
3.2 Phenomenology...........................................................................................................................5
3.3 Grounded Theory.........................................................................................................................6
3.4 Case Studies.................................................................................................................................6
3.5 Ethnographic research.................................................................................................................6
4. Internal and External validity (trustworthiness) in qualitative Research.......................................7
4.1 Validity........................................................................................................................................7
4.2 Ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative Research.......................................................................10
4.2.1 Credibility: confidence in the 'truth' of the findings................................................................10
4.2.2. Transferability....................................................................................................................15
4.2.3 Dependability......................................................................................................................16
4.2.4 Confirmability....................................................................................................................17
5. Reference:........................................................................................................................................19

2
Acknowledgment

I would like express my special thanks to Professor Kassahun Alemu Gelaye, who gave me to
the opportunities to this presentation and I come to know about Internal and External validity
In Qualitative Research so many new things.

1
Internal and External validity (trustworthiness) in qualitative Research
1. Introduction
1.1 What is Qualitative Research?
Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical
data, such as language. Qualitative research can be used to understand how an individual
subjectively perceives and gives meaning to their social reality.
Qualitative data is defined as non-numerical data, such as text, video, photographs or audio
recordings. This type of data can be collected using diary accounts or in-depth interviews,
and analyzed using grounded theory or thematic analysis.
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach
to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural
settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings
people bring to them (Denzin and Lincoln, 2018).
1.2 General Characteristics of Qualitative Research
1. Naturalistic: The natural setting is the direct source of data, and the researcher is the
key instrument in qualitative research. Qualitative researchers go directly to the
Particular setting of interest to observe and collect their data. They spend a
considerable amount of time actually being in a school, sitting in on faculty meetings,
attending parent-teacher association meetings, observing teachers in their classrooms
and in other locales, and In general directly observing and interviewing individuals as
they go about their daily routines.
2. Descriptive Data; Qualitative research is descriptive. Qualitative data are collected
in the form of words or pictures rather than number. The kinds of data collected in
qualitative research include interview transcripts, field notes, photographs, audio
recordings, videotapes, diaries, personal comments, memos, official records, textbook
passages, and anything else that can convey the actual words or actions of people.
3. Concern with Process: Qualitative researchers are concerned with process as well as
product. Qualitative researchers are especially interested in how things occur. Hence,
they are likely to observe how people interact with each other; how certain kinds of
questions are answered; the meanings that people give to certain words and actions;
how people’s attitudes are translated into actions.
4. Inductive: Qualitative researchers tend to analyze their data inductively. Qualitative
researchers do not, usually, formulate a hypothesis beforehand and then seek to test it
out. Rather, they tend to “play it as it goes.”

2
 5. Meaning: Meaning is of essential concern to the qualitative approach How people
make sense out of their lives is a major. A special interest of qualitative researchers
lies in the perspectives of the subjects of a study. Qualitative researchers want to
know what the participants in a study are thinking and why they think what they do.
Assumptions, motives, reasons, goals, and values—all are of interest and likely to be
the focus of the researcher’s questions (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007).
2. Philosophical and methodological issues in qualitative research:
Philosophy is the primary study of general and fundamental problems, such as those
concerned with reality, knowledge, and values of the world. The essence of philosophy is to
find out philosophical answers to all questions through a critical and systematic approach and
its reliance on rational argument.
Research is a careful study or a scientific study to discover new knowledge or information
about it. Research findings are adopted to answer all research questions, which are based on
fundamental principles of philosophy. The philosophical study is composed of three main
brands of philosophy to discover reality, knowledge, and values of the world.
2.1 Two main areas of philosophy are Metaphysics or Ontology and Epistemology.
Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, such as existence, time, the
relationship between mind and body, objects and their properties, wholes and their parts,
events and processes, and causation. Metaphysics or
Ontology is the study of the most general features of reality or the study of being.
Epistemology or Theory of Knowledge is concerned with the nature and scope of
knowledge, such as the relationships between truth, belief, perception and theories of
justification.
Epistemology consists of two sub-fields:
Rationalism is the emphasis on reasoning as a source of knowledge. Rationalism claims that
every possible object of knowledge can be deduced from coherent premises without
observation.
Empiricism is the emphasis on observational evidence via sensory experience over other
evidence as to the source of knowledge. Empiricism claims that at least some knowledge is
only a matter of observation.
Knowledge of reality is discovered by experiences through five senses: sight, hearing, taste,
smell, and touch, which the senses are tools or channels for searching for knowledge or
reality is called materialism.

3
Paradigm means belief, assumption, and tradition – ‘a network of coherent ideas’ (Bassey,
2000). A paradigm is an underlying structure for belief. It is not a methodology, but a
philosophy that directs the process of research in a specific manner.
2.2 Methodology
From the Greek methods (procedure for the attainment of a goal, in this case the acquisition
of knowledge) and logos (theory) – so literally “theory of the way in which knowledge is
acquired”
How should knowledge be produced?
Ontology & epistemological views lead to distinct approaches to methodology.
The terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ signified more than different methods of collecting
data, they indicated different assumptions about research in the social world
Two principal paradigms that have predominated in social sciences research since the 19th
century are those based around positivism and interpretivism. These inform and shape the
views held regarding the research and in turn impact on the ontological, epistemological and
methodological choices made.
2.3 The positivist perspective
Assumes that there is a reality independent of our cognitions, Careful research design can
access it. Research design aims to remove research bias. Aims to identify relationships
between variables and where possible make predictive statements about a wider population
than the one studied. Aim to identify rules and laws, often cause and effect. It is Originates
from research in natural sciences. Positivism: Knowledge, values and ethics Knowledge is
built up like building blocks, by adding new knowledge to old. Positivism claims to be
value-free and objective if rigour is applied. Positivists view values as confounding variables
that need to be controlled in the study. The methodology is designed to isolate and remove
subjectivity and bias. Ethics is seen as something that would be applied to the research, by an
external research ethics body.
2.4 Interpretivism/Constructivist perspective
Maintain that access to the social world is subjective and that there are multiple views of
reality. Constructivist research is interested in accessing these individual views. The
influence of the human researcher is acknowledging, and cannot be made neutral. Instead the
researcher is used in the co-creation of new knowledge that is constructed from the meaning-
making between the researcher and the data. The ontology of constructivism is relativism and
research access to reality is subjective. Constructivism: knowledge, values and ethics
Knowledge consists of constructions about which there is relative consensus. Values play a

4
central role in creating and shaping the research outcomes. Constructivism views the role of
researcher as the producer and facilitator of the research. The role of the researcher is central
to the research process. The role of ethics, like values, is central to constructivism.
3. Qualitative Research Design

3.1 Narrative Research

Narrative research is the study of the life experiences of an individual as told to the
researcher or found in documents and archival material. An important aspect of some
narrative research is that the participant recalls one or more special events (an “epiphany”) in
his or her life. The study and openly acknowledges that his or her report is an interpretation
of the participant’s experiences.
 a specific focus on the stories told by individuals
 It begins with the experiences as expressed in lived and told stories of individuals.
3.1.1Types of Narrative Studies
I. A biographical study: is a form of narrative study in which the researcher writes and
records the experiences of another person's life.
II. Autobiography is written and recorded by the individuals who are the subject of the
study
III. A life history portrays an individual’s entire life, while a personal experience story is
a narrative study of an individual’s personal experiences found in single or multiple
episodes, private situations, or communal folklore
IV. An oral history consists of gathering personal reflections of events and their causes
and effects from one individual or several individuals

3.2 Phenomenology
A phenomenological study describes the meaning for several individuals of their lived
experiences of a concept or a phenomenon. Phenomenologists focus on describing what all
participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon (e.g., grief is universally
experienced). The basic purpose of phenomenology is to reduce individual experiences with a
phenomenon to a description of the universal essence.
Phenomenologists generally assume that there is some commonality to how human beings
perceive and interpret similar experiences; they seek to identify, understand, and describe
these commonalities. This commonality of perception is referred to as the essence —the
essential characteristic(s) of the experience. It is the essential structure of a phenomenon that
researchers want to identity and describe. They do so by studying multiple perceptions of the

5
phenomenon as experienced by different people, and by then trying to determine what is
common to these perceptions and reactions. This searching for the essence of an experience is
the cornerstone the defining characteristic of phenomenological research.

3.3 Grounded Theory

In a grounded theory study, the researchers intend to generate a theory that is “‘grounded’ in
data from participants who have experienced the process (Glaser and Strauss, 2010).
Grounded theories are not generated before a study begins, but are formed inductively from
the data that are collected during the study itself. In other words, researchers start with the
data they have collected and then develop generalizations after they look at the data.
“One does not begin with a theory, and then prove it. Rather one begins with an area of study
and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge.” Researchers doing a grounded theory
study use what is called the constant comparative method. There is a continual interplay
between the researcher, his or her data, and the theory that is being developed. Potential
categories for grouping items of data are created, tried out, and discarded until a “fit”
between theory and data is achieved
3.4 Case Studies
What is a case? A case comprises just one individual, classroom, school, or program.
For some researchers, a case is not just an individual or situation that can easily be identified
(e.g., a particular individual, classroom, organization, or project); it may be an event (e.g., a
campus celebration), an activity (e.g., learning to use a computer), or an on-going process
(e.g., student teaching). Sometimes much can be learned from studying just one individual,
one classroom, one school, or one school district.
For example, there are some students who learn a second language rather easily. In hopes of
gaining insight into why this is the case, one such student could be observed on a regular
basis to see if there are any noticeable patterns or regularities in the student’s behavior.
3.5 Ethnographic research
Ethnographic research is, in many respects, the most complex of all research methods.
A variety of approaches are used in an attempt to obtain as holistic a picture as possible of a
particular society, group, institution, setting, or situation. The emphasis in ethnographic
research is on documenting or portraying the everyday experiences of individuals by
observing and interviewing them and relevant others.
The key tools, in fact, in all ethnographic studies are in-depth interviewing and continual, on-
going participant observation of a situation.

6
Researchers try to capture as much of what is going on as they can the “whole picture,” so to
speak. Ethnographic research has a particular strength that makes it especially appealing to
4. Internal and External validity (trustworthiness) in qualitative Research
4.1 Validity
 Validity and reliability are key aspects of all research, in qualitative research validity
concerns the degree to which a finding is judged to have been interpreted in a correct
way. It is when a researcher uses certain procedures to check for the accuracy of the
research findings (Creswell, John W., 2014) . It is not a property of the instrument,
but of the instrument’s scores and their interpretations. Validity in research is
concerned with the accuracy and truthfulness of scientific findings (LeCompte and
Goetz, 1982). A valid study should demonstrate what actually exists and a valid
instrument or measure should actually measure what it is supposed to measure.
 There are many types of validity and many names have been used to define the
different types of validity. (Campbell and Stanley, 2011) have defined two major
forms of validity that encompass the many types. They refer to "internal" and
"external" validity, Validity and applied it to qualitative research.
Internal validity is the term used to refer to the extent to which research findings
are a true reflection or representation of reality rather than being the effects of
extraneous variables.
External validity addresses the degree or extent to which such representations or
reflections of reality are legitimately applicable across group
Qualitative researchers agree that most claims people make are based on their subjective
constructions of reality. Validity is vital in qualitative work, where the researcher’s
subjectivity can so readily cloud the interpretation of the data, and where research findings
are often questioned or viewed with scepticism by the scientific community.
Many qualitative researchers avoid the terms validity and reliability and use terms such as
credibility, trustworthiness, truth, value, applicability, consistency and conformability, when
referring to criteria for evaluating the scientific merit of qualitative research(Glaser and
Strauss, 2010) (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).(Egon G. Guba, 1981)
4.1.1 Four fundamental questions/ useful point /
There are four fundamental questions to be asked about any kind of research (Krefting, 1991)
1.) How can one establish confidence in the “truth” of the findings of a particular inquiry for
the subjects (respondents) with which and the context in which the inquiry was carried out?
(Truth value)
7
2.) How can one determine the extent to which the findings of a particular inquiry have
applicability in other contexts or with other subjects (respondents)? (Applicability)
3.) How can one determine whether the findings of an inquiry would be repeated if the
inquiry were replicated with the same (or similar) subjects (respondents) in the same (or
similar) context? (Consistency)
4.) How can one establish the degree to which the findings of an inquiry are determined by
the subjects (respondents) and conditions of the inquiry and not by the biases, interests or
perspectives of the inquirer? (Neutrality)
Positivism/ Quantitative Interpretativism /Qualitative
methodology (rigour) methodology (trustworthiness)
Truth value Internal validity Credibility
Applicability External validity Transferability
Consistency Reliability Dependability
Neutrality Objectivity Confirmability

Methods of judging value in research (adapted from Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
4.1.2 The positivist paradigm, in response to these four fundamental questions
(Creswell and Miller, 2000)
1. The criterion of internal validity corresponds with the question about the truth value
of research.
 Design is internally valid if there is confidence that the results of the study
are characteristic of the variables being studied and not of the research
procedure itself.
 In studies where a causal connection is assumed between dependent and
independent variables, internal validity refers to the unambiguous
assignment of causes to effects.
2. External validity “may be defined as the approximate validity with which we infer
that the presumed causal relationship can be generalized to and across alternate
measures of the cause and effect and across different types of persons, settings, and
times”(Campbell and Stanley, 2011)
 It corresponds with the question about the applicability of the research results
to other subjects, tests, settings, times, measures and characteristics than those
in the study that has been conducted (Golafshani, 2015)

8
  It is assumed that each repetition of the application of the same, or supposedly
equivalent, instruments to the same units will yield similar measurements
3. The criterion of reliability then corresponds with the question about the consistency
of research findings.
4. The criterion of objectivity matches the question about the neutrality of the study. In
the positivist research paradigm, the usual touchstone for objectivity is inter-
subjective agreement. If several observers can agree on a phenomenon, their
collective judgement is said to be objective (Guba and Lincoln, 1994)
4.1.3 The interpretivist research paradigm in response to these four fundamental
questions
 Some researchers’ clam that, it would be impossible to establish similar
evaluation criteria for separating trustworthy and non-trustworthy research
within the interpretivist paradigm
 Because the assumptions underlying these frameworks are incompatible with
the desire for non-arbitrary criteria, Smith (1984) contends that any attempt to
establish a similar checklist will be marked by confusion and uncertainty.
 All scholars agree it would be wrong to evaluate qualitative methods based on
interpretivist, constructivist or naturalist assumptions against the evaluation
criteria from the positivist paradigm (Sandelowski, 1986, p. 27).
 If we want to assess which qualitative studies are more trustworthy than
others, our evaluation criteria need to be consistent with the philosophical
positions underpinning them
Interpretive research is based on different set of ontological and epistemological
assumptions about social phenomenon than positivist research, the positivist notions
of rigor, such as reliability, internal validity, and generalizability, do not apply in a
similar manner. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) provide an alternative set of
criteria that can be used to judge the rigor of interpretive research.
There are several approaches to trustworthiness and rigor in the literature as it relates
to qualitative research
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the trustworthiness of a research study is the
central aspect of the issues that are conventionally called validity and reliability.
These authors proposed specific criteria to be used as a guideline to trustworthiness:
credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

9
4.2 Ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative Research
What Is Trustworthiness?
An expectation in qualitative methodologies that the researcher should provide enough
explanation, transparency, and evidence that their results can be confidently believed.
Trustworthiness or rigor of a study refers to the degree of confidence in data, interpretation,
and methods used to ensure the quality of a study .(Denise F. Polit,Cheryl Tatano Beck,
2012)
Researchers need alternative models appropriate to qualitative designs that ensure rigor
without sacrificing the relevance of the qualitative research. Guba (1981) proposed such a
model for assessing the trustworthiness of qualitative data.
In each study, researchers should establish the protocols and procedures necessary for a study
to be considered worthy of consideration by readers (Amankwaa, 2016). Although most
experts agree trustworthiness is necessary, debates have been waged in the literature as to
what constitutes trustworthiness (Leung, 2015).
Criteria outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985) are accepted by many qualitative researchers.
These criteria include credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability; they later
added authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Each of these criteria and the typically used
procedures will be out lined. Not all procedures are used in each study.
4.2.1 Credibility: confidence in the 'truth' of the findings
Credibility is the standard by which a qualitative study is expected to be believable to
critical readers and to be approved by the persons who provided the information gathered
during the study.
Techniques for establishing credibility
1. Prolonged Engagement
2. Persistent Observation
3. Triangulation
4. Peer debriefing
5. Negative case analysis
6. Referential adequacy
7. Member-checking

10
 1. Prolonged Engagement: Spending sufficient time in the field to learn or understand
the culture, social setting, or phenomenon of interest. This involves spending adequate
time observing various aspects of a setting, speaking with a range of people, and
developing relationships and rapport with members of the culture. Development of
rapport and trust facilitates understanding and co-construction of meaning between
researcher and members of a setting. For the researcher to experience the breadth of
variation and to overcome distortions due to their presence (Hawthorne Effect)
The observer should be there long enough to:
 become oriented to the situation so that the context is appreciated and understood
 be able to detect and account for distortions that might be in the data (e.g. researcher
begins to blend in; respondents feel comfortable disclosing information that no longer
'tows the party-line')
 The researcher can rise above his or her own preconceptions
 The researcher builds trust
2. Persistent Observation
Is a technique that ensures depth of experience and understanding in addition to the broad
scope encouraged through prolonged engagement? To be persistent, the researcher must
explore details of the phenomenon under study to a deep enough level that they can decide
what is important and what is irrelevant and focus on the most relevant aspects. Participant
observation "combines participation in the lives of the people being studied with maintenance
of a professional distance that allows adequate observation and recording of data" (Fetterman,
1998, pp. 34-35). Participant observation underscores the person's role as participant in the
social setting he or she observes.
2.1 Skills of a Participant Observer
Learning the Language - learning to speak and understand the language of the people studied;
learn insider phrases; people will begin to elevate their level of discourse with you
1. Building explicit awareness - awareness of the little, often taken for granted, details of
life
2. Building Memory - building one's ability to remember things that happen or are
observed in the field. Practice as well as developing a method for jotting notes can
help with this.
3. Maintaining Naivete - trying to maintain a position of inexperienced member of a
social setting or culture. Developing this position of 'novice' is particularly difficult
when one studies a familiar culture.

11
 4. Building writing skills - developing the ability to write comfortably and clearly
3. Triangulation
Triangulation involves using multiple data sources in an investigation to produce
understanding.
Some see triangulation as a method for corroborating findings and as a test for validity. This,
however, is controversial. This assumes that a weakness in one method will be compensated
for by another method, and that it is always possible to make sense between different
accounts. This is unlikely.
Rather than seeing triangulation as a method for validation or verification, qualitative
researchers generally use this technique to ensure that an account is rich, robust,
comprehensive and well-developed.
Reasons to triangulate
A single method can never adequately shed light on a phenomenon. Using multiple methods
can help facilitate deeper understanding.
(Denzin and Lincoln, 2018) identify four types of triangulation:
a. Methods triangulation - checking out the consistency of findings generated by
different data collection methods. .
Within-method triangulation “the use of varieties of the same method to
investigate a research issue". On a simple level this might involve asking open
and closed questions in the same questionnaire.
Between-method triangulation the use of "contrasting research methods”.
On a simple level this might involve combining a structured interview with
some form of observational research.
 It is common to have qualitative and quantitative data in a study
 These elucidate complementary aspects of the same phenomenon
 Often the points were these data diverge are of great interest to the qualitative
researcher and provide the most insights
b. Triangulation of sources (Data) - examining the consistency of different data
sources from within the same method. For example: at different points in time
in public vs. private settings comparing people with different view points
c. Analyst Triangulation - using multiple analyst to review findings or using
multiple observers and analysts
 This can provide a check on selective perception and illuminate blind spots in an
interpretive analysis

12
  The goal is not to seek consensus, but to understand multiple ways of seeing the data
d. Theory/perspective triangulation - using multiple theoretical perspectives to
examine and interpret the data
4. Peer-debriefing: Is a technique whereby a researcher meets with a disinterested peer
so that the peer can question the researcher's methods, emerging conclusions, and
biases.
A disinterested peer might include anyone who is willing to ask probing questions and who is
not a participant or researcher in the setting where the study is being conducted. Ideally, the
peer debriefer should have considerable knowledge of the studied topic and the method used
to investigate it.
4.1 Purpose of debriefing
 through analytical probing, a debriefer can help uncover taken-for-granted biases,
perspectives, and assumptions on the researcher's part
 through this process, the researcher can become aware of his/her posture toward data
and analysis
 this is an opportunity to test and defend emergent hypotheses and see if they seem
reasonable and plausible to a disinterested debriefer
 provide the researcher with an opportunity for catharsis
5. Negative or Deviant Case Analysis
It is process searching for and discussing elements of the data that do not support or appear to
contradict patterns or explanations that are emerging from data analysis.
Deviant case analysis is a process for refining an analysis until it can explain or account for a
majority of cases. Analysis of deviant cases may revise, broaden and confirm the patterns
emerging from data analysis.
For instance, if a researcher begins to conclude that poverty is having a serious, negative
impact on student achievement in a community, then they should seek to find any negative
cases in which a child from an impoverished family is actually excelling academically. This
will help them to better understand the interaction between poverty and achievement and
what some individuals or families must do to mitigate it.
6. Referential Adequacy (Archiving of data)
It is identifying a portion of data to be archived, but not analyzed. The researcher then
conducts the data analysis on the remaining data and develops preliminary findings. The
researcher then returns to this archived data and analyzes it as a way to test the validity of his
or her findings.

13
 7. Member Checks
Member checking is a process whereby “the final report or specific description or themes”
are taken back to the participants to offer them “an opportunity to provide context and an
alternative interpretation” (Patton, 2002, p. 561). (Creswell, 2009, p. 191)
This is when data, analytic categories, interpretations and conclusions are tested with
members of those groups from whom the data were originally obtained.
This can be done both formally and informally as opportunities for member checks may arise
during the normal course of observation and conversation.
Typically, member checking is viewed as a technique for establishing to the validity of an
account.
Lincoln and Guba posit that this is the most crucial technique for establishing credibility.
However, this technique is controversial.
7.1 The Positive Aspects of Member-checking
1. Provides an opportunity to understand and assess what the participant intended to do
through his or her actions
2. Gives participants opportunity to correct errors and challenge what are perceived as
wrong interpretations
3. Provides the opportunity to volunteer additional information which may be stimulated
by the playing back process
4. Gets respondent on the record with his or her reports
5. Provides an opportunity to summarize preliminary findings
6. Provides respondents the opportunity to assess adequacy of data and preliminary
results as well as to confirm particular aspects of the data
7.2 The Drawbacks and Problems with Member-checking
Member checking relies on the assumption that there is a fixed truth of reality that can be
accounted for by a researcher and confirmed by a respondent
 From an interpretive perspective, understanding is co-created and there is no
objective truth or reality to which the results of a study can be compared.
 The process of member-checking may lead to confusion rather than confirmation
because participants may change their mind about an issue,
 the interview itself may have an impact on their original assessment, and new
experiences (since the time of contact) may have intervened
Respondents may disagree with researcher's interpretations. Then the question of whose
interpretation should stand becomes an issue.

14
 Both researchers and members are stakeholders in the research process and have different
stories to tell and agendas to promote. This can result in conflicting ways of seeing
interpretations.
Members struggle with abstract synthesis
Members and researchers may have different views of what is a fair account
Members strive to be perceived as good people; researchers strive to be seen as good
scholars. These divergent goals may shape findings and result in different ways of seeing
and reacting to data
Members may tell stories during an interview that they later regret or see differently.
Members may deny such stories and want them removed from the data
Members may not be in the best position to check the data. They may forget what they
said or the manner in which a story was told
Members may participate in checking only to be 'good' respondents and agree with an
account in order to please the researcher
Different members may have different views of the same data
4.2.2. Transferability
Transferability: The extent, to which findings are useful to persons in other settings, is
different from other aspects of research in that readers actually determine how applicable the
findings are to their situations (ploit, 2014). Thick description is described by Lincoln and
Guba (1985) as a way of achieving a type of external validity.
By describing a phenomenon in sufficient detail one can begin to evaluate the extent to which
the conclusions drawn are transferable to other times, settings, situations, and people.
Techniques for establishing transferability
Thick Description
Thick description refers to the detailed account of field experiences in which the researcher
makes explicit the patterns of cultural and social relationships and puts them in context
Thick description Important for two main reasons
First, thick description is seen as a form of building trustworthiness and validity. The
reader can see for themselves the depth of the data and analyses.
Second, the depth of the descriptions allows the reader to determine how the study
findings may transfer to other situations.
The qualitative researcher has the challenging task of providing thick descriptions of the
setting, subjects, and other persons involved, quotes, and other data compelling interpretation

15
and synthesis to position the reader to (if deemed applicable) transfer the findings to their
own context.
Readers must be the ones to determine whether the qualitative inquiry is transferable, not the
researcher.
More details give readers more power to discern which results might transfer to their contexts
and which might not, and the rigorous qualitative researcher provides readers with sufficient
detail to determine for themselves whether study results will transfer to their unique contexts.
4.2.3 Dependability
Dependability is the standard by which the logic, reasoning, methods, and results are
expected to be stable or consistent over time.
The dependability in a qualitative study to check, if the researcher has been careless or made
mistakes in conceptualizing the study, collecting the data, interpreting the findings and
reporting results.
The more consistent the researcher has been in this research process, the more dependable are
the results. For instance, a study that was attempting to understand African American
students' experiences in an inner-city school but then shifted to interviewing white students,
rural students, etc. would have deviated from the established reasoning and methods proposed
in the study. Such deviations often occur out of convenience to the researcher (e.g., a target
population is no longer available for study), but they represent a serious threat to
Techniques for establishing dependability
External Audits
External audits involve having a researcher not involved in the research process examine both
the process and product of the research study. The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy and
evaluate whether or not the findings, interpretations and conclusions are supported by the
data.
The Positive Aspects of External Auditing
External audits are conducted to foster the accuracy or validity of a research study.
External audits provide an opportunity for an outsider to challenge the process and findings
of a research study. This can provide:
 an opportunity to summarize preliminary findings
 an opportunity to assess adequacy of data and preliminary results
 important feedback that can lead to additional data gathering and the development of
stronger and better articulated findings
The Drawbacks with External Auditing

16
 External audits share many of the same problems as member-checking.
External auditing relies on the assumption that there is a fixed truth or reality that can be
accounted for by a researcher and confirmed by an outside auditor
 From an interpretive perspective, understanding is co-created and there is no
objective truth or reality to which the results of a study can be compared
 This process may lead to confusion rather than confirmation. An external auditor
cannot know the data as well as researchers immersed in the study and may not
share the same point of view.
This may lead to different understandings of the data. How to manage these different
ways of seeing can be problematic.
An external auditor may disagree with researchers' interpretations. Then the question of
whose interpretation should stand becomes an issue.
4.2.4 Confirmability
Confirmability is the standard by which a qualitative study is expected to be supported by
informants (participants) who are involved in the study and by events that are independent of
the researcher. This is analogous to objectivity in quantitative research. Methods include
maintenance of an audit trail of analysis and methodological memos of log.
The auditor considers the process of research as well as the product, data, findings,
interpretations, and recommendations .(Egon G. Guba, 1981)
Techniques for establishing confirmability
Audit Trail
An audit trail is a transparent description of the research steps taken from the start of a
research project to the development and reporting of findings. These are records that are kept
regarding what was done in an investigation.
Categories for reporting information when develop an audit trail: (Lincoln and Guba (1985,)
1. Raw data - including all raw data, written field notes, unobstrusive measures
(documents)
2. Data reduction and analysis products - including summaries such as condensed
notes, unitized informaiton and quantitative summaries and theoretical notes
3. Data reconstruction and synthesis products - including structure of categories (themes,
definitions, and relationships), findings and conclusions and a final report including
connections to existing literatures and an integration of concepts, relationships, and
interpretations

17
 4. Process notes - including methodological notes (procedures, designs, strategies,
rationales), trustworthiness notes (relating to credibility, dependability and
confirmability) and audit trail notes
5. Materials relating to intentions and dispositions - including inquiry proposal,
personal notes (reflexive notes and motivations) and expectations (predictions and
intentions)
6. Instrument development information - including pilot forms, preliminary schedules,
observation formats
Steps to foster reflexivity and reflexive research design
 Designing research that includes multiple investigators -- This can foster
dialogue, lead to the development of complementary as well as divergent
understandings of a study situation and provide a context in which researchers' - often
hidden - beliefs, values, perspectives and assumptions can be revealed and contested.
 It is worth noting that the idea of involving multiple investigators in a study and
fostering a reflexive dialogue is most often not to reach consensus and foster
reliability.
 Develop a reflexive journal (Lincoln and Guba). -- This is a type of diary where a
researcher makes regular entries during the research process.
o In these entries, the researcher records methodological decisions and the
reasons for them, the logistics of the study and reflection upon what is
happening in terms of one's own values and interests.
o Diary keeping of this type is often very private and cathartic.
 Report research perspectives, positions, values and beliefs in manuscripts and other
publications. - - Many believe that it is valuable and essential to briefly report in
manuscripts, as best as possible, how one's preconceptions, beliefs, values,
assumptions and position may have come into play during the research process.

18
5. Reference:
Bassey, M., 2000. Case study research in educational settings, 1. publ., repr. ed, Doing
qualitative research in educational settings. Open University Press, Buckingham.
Bogdan, R., Biklen, S.K., 2007. Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theories
and methods, 5th ed. ed. Pearson A & B, Boston, Mass.
Campbell, D.T., Stanley, J.C., 2011. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Wadsworth, Belomt, CA.
Creswell, John W., 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L., 2000. Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into
Practice 39, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Denise F. Polit,Cheryl Tatano Beck, 2012. Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising
Evidence for Nursing Practice. AORN Journal 95, 307–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.10.009
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2018. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 1682.
Egon G. Guba, E.G.G.R., 1981. ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper: Criteria for Assessing the
Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. Educational Communication and
Technology 29, 75–91.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 2010. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research, 5. paperback print. ed. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick.
Golafshani, N., 2015. Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. TQR.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.A.S., 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.
Krefting, L., 1991. Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45, 214–222.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
LeCompte, M.D., Goetz, J.P., 1982. Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic
Research. Review of Educational Research 52, 31–60.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031

19