Trustworthiness of Research

In order to ensure trustworthiness in our research study, the inclusion of several criteria are
proposed. These are based, in part, on Guba’s (1981) criteria that should be considered by
qualitative researchers in pursuit of a trustworthy study: dependability, credibility, transferability,
confirmability.

1. Credibility

Credibility is the confidence that can be placed in the truth of the research findings.
Credibility establishes whether the research findings represent plausible information drawn from the
participants’ original data and is a correct interpretation of the participants’ original views. This will
be done through the following methods;

Prolonged engagement. Several distinct questions were asked related to workplace-related

stress on employees’ performance and well-being through questionnaires, key informant interviews
and ocular observations. Participants will be encouraged to support their statements with examples,
and the interviewer will have asked follow-up questions. Then, the researchers will study the data
from their raw interview material until a theory emerged to provide them with the scope of the
phenomenon under study.

Triangulation. Triangulation aims to enhance the process of qualitative research by using

multiple approaches thru gathering data by means of different data collection methods such as in-
depth interviews, focus group discussions and field notes. Data will be analyzed by different
researchers, after which the interpretations will be compared. If their interpretations differed, they
will discuss them until the most suitable interpretation will be found, which best represented the
meaning of the data.

Regular meetings during the process of analysis will be held. Persistent observation will help
examine the characteristics of the data. The researchers will constantly read and reread the data,
analyzed them, theorized about them and revised the concepts accordingly. The researchers will
study the data until the final theory provided the intended depth of insight.

Member check. All transcripts of the interviews and focus group discussions will be sent to
the participants for feedback. In addition, halfway through the study
period, a meeting will be held with those who had participated in either the interviews or the focus
group discussions, enabling them to correct the interpretation and challenge what they perceived to
be ‘wrong’ interpretations. Finally, the findings will be presented to the participants.

2. Transferability

The degree to which the results of qualitative research can be transferred to other contexts
or
settings with other respondents is termed Transferability. The researcher facilitates the
transferability judgment by a potential user through thick description.

Transferability concerns the aspect of applicability by providing a ‘thick description’ of the

participants and the research process, a rhetorical strategy that richly and “thickly” describes events
such that the reader can feel that they experience the events described. This is to enable the reader
to assess whether the findings will be transferable to their own setting; this is the so-called
transferability judgement, which implies that the reader, not us the researchers, makes the
transferability judgment because we do not know their specific settings.

3. Dependability

Dependability is a way to make and get consistency of data will be found so that the data
can be dependable. In short, it is the stability of findings over time. It will involve participants’
evaluation of the findings, interpretation and recommendations of the study such that all are
supported by the data asreceived from participants of the study.

Dependability includes the aspect of consistency. The researchers will check whether the
analysis process is in line with the accepted standards for a particular design.

The inter-subjectivity of the data shall be secured. The interpretation shall not be based on
our
own particular preferences and viewpoints but will need to be grounded in the data. Here, the focus
will be on the interpretation process embedded in the process of analysis. The strategy will need to
ensure dependability known as an audit trail. In which we will be responsible for providing a
complete set of notes on decisions made during the research process, research team meetings,
reflective thoughts, sampling, research materials adopted, emergence of the findings and
information about the data management. This will enable the auditor to study the transparency of
the research path.

Lincoln and Guba propose a procedure that they call auditing that manifests reflexivity
clearly in the research process (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In essence they argue for an “audit trail”
as part of the research process. They propose a systematic accounting of the instances of
methodological reflexivity in which data and data analysis produced through the research are
catalogued and reviewed during the course of the study by peer auditors. Auditors would look at the
“raw data” and examples of analysis, in addition to the triangulation and relationships drawn
between the data and evaluations. Also, auditors would seek out research diary entries, meeting
notes for decision-making, analytical strategies and so on in order to provide a complete and
thorough methodological formative assessment.
The auditor who will perform the dependability and confirmability audit will not be part of the
research team but an expert in grounded theory. The audit report will then be shared with all
members of the research team.

Peer debriefing or peer scrutiny are solid communication habits that create trust. Using
another researcher to read and react to field notes, with their embedded researcher interpretations,
is a confirmation that creates a tacit reality for the researcher. It is like asking for participants to
member-check but with peer-level members: The professional level of the peers conveys a sense of
self-credibility. Also, since the scrutiny is from a peer, it provides the researcher an insider analysis
and feedback before the study goes public, itself an act of trust.

Presumably, awareness that the work and the products from the work will be inspected by a
peer would cause us the researcher to be careful with what is recorded as fact and what is set aside
as researchers’ interpretive comments about the data. This habit of data separation into
observations and interpretations is called bracketing.

4. Confirmability

Confirmability concerns the aspect of neutrality. It is the degree to which the findings of the
research study could be confirmed by other researchers. It is concerned with establishing that data
and interpretations of the findings are not figments of the inquirer’s imagination, but clearly derived
from the data. Moreover, the processes involved is the same for Dependability and confirmability
aspect of our study.