Our research adviser told us to use specified terms for validity and reliability in qualitative research, since he referred to these terms as specific for quantitative research. To my understanding, validity and reliability are also used for qualitative data, but are defined differently.
There is quite a bit of debate about whether the terms reliability and validity are appropriate for qualitative research. ss far as I can tell, however, the majority opinion is that they are not.
For example, reliability in quantitative research is based on the idea that two different measurements of the same phenomenon should return equivalent results. But in qualitative research we do not measure things, and we recognize that the subjectivity of the researcher can often lead to different insights when examining any aspect of social life.
For validity, in quantitative research, one common formulation is that we measure what we intend to measure in a way that minimizes bias. But in qualitative research, we are far more likely to be exploratory, with a goal of describing something in a meaningful way, other than separating out "true scores" from sources of bias.
In terms of how these terms are replaced in qualitative research, one of the most influential treatments is in Lincoln and Guba's 1985 book, Naturalistic Inquiry. You can find a nice summary of their ideas at:
http://www.qualres.org/HomeLinc-3684.html
I agree with David that the common concept of reliability (the repeated application of a method returning the same result) does not apply to qualitative research. I am less sure about validity, though. Validity means that we measure what we intend to measure (I would leave aside the notion of bias because there are more reasons why a measurement may not be valid). For explorative qualitative research, validity does not seem to make much sense. However, there is qualitative research that is not exploratory but theory-driven, i.e. that operationalises theoretical concepts using qualitative methods. In this case, asking about validity does make sense. Also, the moment we use theoretical terms to describe findings of explorative research, validity comes into play. If we claim to have discovered interests, frames, goals etc. of study participants - how do we know that our qualitative study obtained information on these phenomena? Did we actually empirically identify frames? This is a question of validity.
I came across this question when a study asked participants about their behaviour in specific situations and switched to hypothetical situations for participants who did not experience this kind of situations. In the subsequent data analysis, responses about experienced situations and hypothetical situations discussed in interviews where treated equally, which I challenged.
Niña Angelica Baluyot You can use Rigor and Trustworthiness instead of reliability and validity. There are several techniques to achieve rigor and trustworthiness for your study. Hope, you have got your answer. Thank you.
I can recommend two short and easy to read and articles about quality criterias in research, one for qualitative and one for quantitative research:
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(2), 34-35. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(3), 66-67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes