Examining the validity structure of qualitative research.

Discussions of the term "validity" have traditionally been attached to the quantitative research tradition. Not surprisingly, reactions by qualitative researchers have been mixed regarding whether or not this concept should be applied to qualitative research. At the extreme, some qualitative researchers have suggested that the traditional quantitative criteria of reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative research (e.g., Smith, 1984). Smith contends that the basic epistemological and ontological assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research are incompatible, and, therefore, the concepts of reliability and validity should be abandoned. Most qualitative researchers, however, probably hold a more moderate viewpoint. Most qualitative researchers argue that some qualitative research studies are better than others, and they frequently use the term validity to refer to this difference. When qualitative researchers speak of research validity, they are usually referring to qualitative research that is plausible, credible, trustworthy, and, therefore, defensible. We believe it is important to think about the issue of validity in qualitative research and to examine some strategies that have been developed to maximize validity (Kirk & Miller, 1986; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 1996). A list of these strategies is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Strategies Used to Promote Qualitive Research Validity

 
Strategy                     Description 
 
Researcher as "Detective"    A metaphor characterizing the qualitive 
                             researcher as he or she searches for 
                             evidence about causes and effects. The 
                             researcher develops an understanding 
                             of the data through careful 
                             consideration of potential causes and 
                             effects and by systematically 
                             eliminating "rival" explanations or 
                             hypotheses until the final "case" is 
                             made "beyond a reasonable doubt." The 
                             "detective" can utilize any of the 
                             strategies listed here. 
Extended fieldwork           When possible, qualitive researchers 
                             should collect data in the field over 
                             an extended period of time. 
Low inference descriptors    The use of description phrased very 
                             close to the participants' accounts and 
                             researchers' field notes. Verbatims 
                             (i.e., direct quotations) are a 
                             commonly used type of low inference 
                             descriptors. 
Triangulation                "Cross-checking" information and 
                             conclusions through the use of multiple 
                             procedures of sources. When the 
                             different procedures or sources are in 
                             agreement you have "corroboration." 
Data triangulation           The use of multiple data sources to 
                             help understand a phenomenon. 
Methods triangulation        The use of multiple research methods to 
                             study a phenomenon. 
Investigator triangulation   The use of multiple investigators 
                             (i.e., multiple researchers) in 
                             collecting and interpreting the data. 
Theory triangulation         The use of multiple theories and 
                             perspectives to help interpret and 
                             explain the data. 
Participant feedback         The feedback and discussion of the 
                             researcher's interpretations and 
                             conclusions with the actual 
                             participants and other members of the 
                             participant community for verification 
                             and insight. 
Peer review                  Discussion of the researcher's 
                             interpretations and conclusions with 
                             other people. This includes discussion 
                             with a "disinterested peer" (e.g., with 
                             another researcher not directly 
                             involved). This peer should be 
                             skeptical and play the "devil's 
                             advocate," challenging the researcher 
                             to provide solid evidence for any 
                             interpretations or conclusions. 
                             Discussion with peers who are 
                             familiar with the research can also 
                             help provide useful challenges and 
                             insights. 
Negative case sampling       Locating and examining cases that 
                             discomfort the researcher's …