Edim Eka James Usually involving other professionals in the review of the structured questions of the interview helps the validity of the questions. Next, to improve the reliability of your sampled interviewees, use the saturation principle, i.e., you continue interviewing until you start getting nothing new!

On the other hand, you may study the reliability of the number of interviewees using a marketing approach, check this paper for example, to see how.

Article Needed MIS Competencies to the Job Market: Students' Perspective

I think one of the ways to achieve this is having your questions reviewed by other reputable researchers related to your field.

Nourhan Moustafa El-Sherbiny This boils down to content validity through authority vetting. Thanks very much for this useful insight. I appreciate you

In quantitative research, reliability and validity apply to concerns about measurement, but in qualitative research we do not measure anything, so reliability and validity are not nearly as relevant. Indeed, many qualitative researchers refuse to accept this terminology and you may find yourself in trouble with reviewers if you do use it.

The basic reasoning behind this is that qualitative research is inherently subjective and interpretive, so there is no reason to expect another researcher to come to the same conclusions. Commonly used alternatives (especially to validity) are trustworthiness and credibility.

Dear David L Morgan You have been a stalwart support system in my qualitative research journey and I owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you so much for this important insight. I like the fact that you said that in qualitative studies, we are not measuring anything so reliability scales don’t really matter here. It sounds sensible to me because qualitative studies are about explorations and not measurements. Thanks a lot. I have learned a lot today!

The terms "validity" and "reliability" are commonly used in quantitative research; their conceptual counterparts in qualitative research are often referred to as "credibility" and "dependability." Here is an editorial that could provide you with a recent, insightful overview.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820941288

Good luck,

Edim, This is one way to consider “trustworthiness” as mentioned by David Morgan :

Cairns-Lee, H., Lawley, J. & Tosey P. (2021). Enhancing Researcher Reflexivity About the Influence of Leading Questions in Interviews. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 58(1):164-188. doi/10.1177/00218863211037446

Dear Mohialdeen Alotumi Thanks a lot for your useful insights. I will go through the article you recommended. Once again, I appreciate you.

Dear James Lawley Thank you for lending your voice to this discussion. I appreciate the effort. I will go through the article suggested. Thanks a lot.

In true sense , this is harsh reality that such research work / Qualitative analysis faces the challenges of generalization as compared to quantitative methods.

Dear Abhishek Kumar Pandey Can you please be more detailed in your response so people can follow? Thank you so much!

Qualitative research often caters the judgement and subjectivity of the researchers. Even , the design and choice of data collection might affected from no of unobserved variables so there is always some limitations on qualitative research work. It can not be as generalized as a quantitative research work. Second, reliability and validity is not a big issue while dealing with qualitative research work .

Abhishek Kumar Pandey While this is a valid drawback of qualitative research, it is undoubtedly true that it allows for a more robust exploration of phenomena enabling the creation of more insights than quantitative studies, which are generally reductionist and restrictive.

Need I remind you that critics argue that reducing phenomena to numerical data can result in a loss of depth and fail to capture the richness and complexity of real-world experiences or social phenomena. This reductionist nature can limit a comprehensive understanding of the studied topic. Also, relying solely on numerical data may ignore the complexity of human experiences and fail to capture essential insights that qualitative methods could provide.

Additionally, some critics question the objectivity of quantitative measurements and the potential for bias in study design, data collection, or interpretation. Others argue that quantitative research may not adequately address the richness of social phenomena or capture the perspectives of marginalized groups.

So you see, my friend, quantitative research is also not without its own flaws and pitfalls ✅✅

Knowing that there are pros & cons in all methodologies. The researcher must be careful in his/her choice of the plan of action in this respect. Also, keep in mind that there are different approaches to each—the inductive nature of qualitative and the deductive nature of the quantitative. Leading to say, we can use the inductive track to explore determinants and variables that may impact or simply affect a main target concept (dep.), then build on the outcomes by doing deductive work to reach larger sample sizes and make sure to do the necessary Robust Reliability and Validity analyses, so when both outcomes [from both research works] are triangulated with expert opinion (primary or secondary), beneficial results are found. The cycle continues,... with time mixed approaches are implemented. Even though reliability and validity are shown to be of a less issue, this does not mean that one cannot work on the reliability of the sample size itself, and support the design with expert opinion to be more creative in the planning phase.

Dear Hussin Jose Hejase Thanks a great deal for such a robust response. Your insights have marshaled clear justifications for a mixed-methods approach to mitigate the pitfalls of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Sounds really great, but a Himalayan task to do. Either way, I appreciate your insights.

I would not choose mixed methods just because both qualitative and quantitative methods have limitations. Instead I would choose one or the other based on which one has the strengths you need

Dear David L Morgan I was eagerly waiting for you to shed lights on that position because I thought it would be punishing and somewhat misplaced to mix both methods in a single research when they both have their own unique limitations. Like you have rightly said, I would rather choose either of the two methods based on its strengths and suitability for my research purpose. Thank you, Prof David L Morgan for lending your voice to this really useful discussion ✅💯

Edim Eka James Much of my own work involves mixed methods research and I have even written a textbook in this area, so I have a good idea how challenging it can be. In particular, it requires not only mastery of each kind of method but also additional attention to the integration of the two.

Never the less, there are still situations where mixed methods can definitely yield superior results. The key is know what your options are with regard to different kinds of methods (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed), and how to decide what to use for your specific goals.

Dear Professor David L Morgan It‘s always a great pleasure to read your insights on this issue because you provide clarity like no other. I agree with you that a mixed-methods research approach entails immense efforts. And so, at this stage of my transition to qualitative methods, I would not venture into it yet. As you have rightly said, my goals align more with qualitative approaches at the moment. I thank you for your honest contributions. I really appreciate you.

Unlike quantitative research instruments, qualitative research seeks to understand how social reality is constructed by gathering impressions in a social context.

It does not aim to measure constructs and make correlations.

If the idea is to validate the "instrument", you should conduct two or three interviews and see if the questions elicit the categories you want to research.

Once the interview has been carried out, one way of attributing validity to the production of primary data is to present the transcribed interview to the research participant so that they can check and confirm what has been produced.

Dear Fábio Lucas de Albuquerque Lima I really love this response. It reinforces my beliefs about qualitative research and I appreciate you. Thanks a lot for lending your voice to this important discussion ✅💯

Hi Edim, as others suggested,  qualitative research does not measure reliability or validity but rather concerns about "trustworthiness". You can find the Criteria for assessing trustworthiness in this paper:

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91.

Guba’s model of trustworthiness is based on four main aspects: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In qualitative research,

• Credibility deals with ‘How congruent are the findings with reality?’
• Transferability refers to the fact that the investigator has the responsibility to provide sufficient contextual information and descriptive data to enable the reader to make such a transfer
• Dependability is about a dense description of methods and process of study should be provided, so that future researchers can replicate the work.
• Confirmability is the equivalent of objectivity. Steps must be taken to ensure the work’s findings are the result of the experiences and ideas of the informants, rather than the characteristics and preferences of researchers.

And there are strategies to enhance "validity":

• Strauss and Corbin suggested researchers overtly discuss and present procedural operations to show how the research was performed, to ensure research validity and improve transparency in analytical processes.
• CAQDAS（Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, like Bvivo）could benefit research trustworthiness and validity by enabling researchers to retrace and examine analytic steps, and providing transparency of the analytic process.

Dear Xiayang Liu Thank you so much for lending your voice to this critical discussion. I cannot emphasize how much your contribution has benefitted my qualitative research journey. I have sure learned more than enough from your insights and I owe you a debt of gratitude for this. Thank you so much. Scholarly love ✅✅

Xiayang Liu You are correct about the original citation to Guba's early work, but the best known reference for these criteria is Lincoln and Guba's 1985 book, Naturalistic Inquiry.

I have always liked the idea of "credibility" as an overall criterion, which is met by reliability and validity in quantitative research, but has very different implications for qualitative research.

Dear David L Morgan Thank you so much for the clarity you continue to bring to bear in this discourse. This is a mountain of valuable information for me. I am substantially grateful to you and other contributors. Gracias ✅✅💯💯

David L Morgan Thank you for the reference. And I agree with you about the credibility. It's the essence, other aspects are rather like approaches to achieve credibility.