Validity and Reliability In Qualitative Research: A Theoretical Analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the debates about the validity and reliability criteria that are frequently addressed in the qualitative research tradition. For this purpose, concerns about validity and reliability issue have been analyzed in detail based on epistemological and theoretical conceptualizations. As a result of the analysis, it is seen that the issue of validity and reliability is important and researchers propose various conceptual and theoretical approaches to the subject. In addition to the views suggesting that these propositions regarding validity and reliability issue can be defined in various ways and function differently based on epistemological and theoretical differences. It is also seen that there are views emphasizing that the quality of each study should be assessed separately with a more rhetorical approach because it refuses to have pre-determined criteria in qualitative researches. Based on this analysis, the general conclusion that measuring the quality of qualitative studies is a controversial issue and there is no single way to measure quality has been obtained.

Keywords

• Qualitative research,Validity,Reliability,Trusthwortiness

Nitel Araştırmada Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik: Kuramsal Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, nitel araştırma geleneği içinde son dönemlerde sıklıkla ele alınan geçerlik ve güvenirlik ölçütlerine ilişkin tartışmaları incelemektir. Bu amaçla geçerlik ve güvenirlik sorunsalına ilişkin endişeler, konuyla ilgili epistemolojik ve kuramsal kavramsallaştırmalara dayalı olarak ayrıntılı bir şekilde çözümlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Çözümlemeler sonucunda geçerlik ve güvenirlik konusunun son yıllarda giderek önem kazanmaya başladığı ve araştırmacıların konuya yönelik çeşitli yaklaşımlar önerdikleri görülmüştür. Bu önermelerde geçerlik ve güvenirliğin çeşitli şekillerde tanımlanabileceğini ve epistemolojik ve kuramsal farklılıklara dayalı olarak farklı şekilde işlev görebileceğini ortaya koyan görüşlerin yanında, nitel araştırmalarda önceden belirlenmiş ölçütlerin olmasını reddeden, dolayısı ile daha retorik bir yaklaşımla her çalışmanın niteliğinin ayrı değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini vurgulayan görüşlerin olduğu da görülmektedir. Bu çözümlemeye dayalı olarak nitel çalışmalarda geçerlik ve güvenirlik kavramlarının tartışmalı bir konu olduğu ve nitel çalışmaların niteliğini ölçmek için tek bir yolun olmadığı genel sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. 

Keywords

• Nitel araştırma,Geçerlik,Güvenirlik,Güven duyulabilirlik

References

1. Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (2011). Reflections on interpretive adequacy in qualitative research. In. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Forth Edition). (s. 581-594). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
2. Balcı, A. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler (Genişletilmiş 10. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
3. Brink, P. J. (1991). Issues of reliability and validity. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 164-186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4. Boyd, C. O. (2001). Philosophical foundations of qualitative research. In P. E. Munhall (Ed). Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective (Third Edition). (s. 65-90). Boston, MA: NLN Press.
5. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research. New York, NY: Routledge.
6. Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006
7. Cramer, E., Liston, A., Nevin, A., & Thousand, J. (2010). Co-Teaching in Urban Secondary School Districts to Meet the Needs of All Teachers and Learners:" Implications for Teacher Education Reform". International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(2), 59-76.
8. Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people's money; a study of the social psychology of embezzlement. New York, NY, US: Free Press Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130.

9. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
11. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd). (s. 1-32). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
12. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Giardina, M. D. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research .International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 769-782.
13. Dilthey, W., & Betanzos, R. J. (1923/1988). Introduction to the human sciences: An attempt to lay a foundation for the study of society and history. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
14. Durkheim, E. (1985). Toplumbilimsel yöntemin kuralları (Çev. C. B. Akal). İstanbul: BFS Yayınları.
15. Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. (pp. 642-680). San Diego: Academic Press.
16. Engels, F. (1996). Ludwig Feurebach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy. New York, NY: International Publishers.
17. Estabrooks, C. A., Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. (1994). Aggregating qualitative findings: an approach to theory development. Qualitative Health Research, 4(4), 503-511.
18. Fidan, T., & Öztürk, İ. (2015). Perspectives and expectations of union member and non-union member teachers on teacher unions. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 5(2), 191-220.
19. Geertz, C. (2005). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Daedalus, 134(4), 56-86.
20. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th ed.).Boston,MA: Pearson.
21. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
22. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology research and development, 29(2), 75-91.
23. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (s. 105–117). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
25. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S.
26. Lincoln (Ed.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Third Edition). (s. 191-216). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
27. Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30, 287–305.
28. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd.ed). London, UK: Routledge.
29. Kant, I. (1787/1998). Critique of Pure Reason (Trans. P. Guyer & A. W. Wood). Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
30. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Y. Zou and E. T. Trueba (Eds.). Ethnography and Schools: Qualitative Approaches to the Study of Education. (s. 87-138). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
31. Knafl, K. A., & Howard, M. J. (1984). Interpreting and reporting qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 7(1), 17-24.
32. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The sociological quarterly, 34(4), 673-693.
33. Lam, K. K., & Hung, S. Y. M. (2013). Perceptions of emergency nurses during the human swine influenza outbreak: a qualitative study. International emergency nursing, 21(4), 240-246.
34. Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. (s. 95-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
35. Lewis, J. (2009). Redefining qualitative methods: Believability in the fifth moment. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 1–14. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
36. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for evaluation, (30), 73-84.
37. Liston, A. (2004). A qualitative study of secondary co-teachers. Orange, CA: Argosy University.
38. Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousands Oaks. CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
39. Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard educational review, 62(3), 279-301.
40. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: a guide to design and interpretation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (Fourth Edition). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
42. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
43. Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 250-260.
44. Morse, J. M. (1996). The purpose of qualitative research. In J. M. Morse ve P. A. Field (Ed.). Nursing Research: The Application of Qualitative Approaches. (s. 1-18). Falmouth, Cornwall: Chapman & Hall.
45. Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M. & Snape, D. (2014) The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M.
46. Nicholls & R. Ormston, (Eds.). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide For Social Science Students And Researchers. (s. 1-26). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
47. Özdemir, M. (2010). Nitel veri analizi: Sosyal bilimlerde yöntembilim sorunsalı üzerine bir çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 323-343.
48. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
49. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 126-136.
50. Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
51. Ray, M. A. (1994). The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theorethic and methodologic concerns. In Morse, J. M. (Ed.). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. (s. 117-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
52. Roulston, K. (2010). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 199-228.
53. Rüzgar, M.E. (2016).Eğitim Bilimlerine Uygun Yöntem Sorunu: Nitel Araştırma ve Erkuş’a Cevap. İlköğretim Online. 15 (4), 1-19.
54. Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in nursing science, 8(3), 27-37.
55. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Reading qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, (1), 74-108.
 Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
56. Sever, M. (2012). A Critical look at the theories of sociology of education. Journal of Human Sciences, 9(1), 650-671.
57. Sever, M., Soğuksu, A. F., Türe, E., Koçmar, Y., Olğun, M., Üçüncü, N., & Öztürk, İ. (2016). What Does It Mean To Be a Student in Different Types of High Schools in Turkey through the Eyes of Students?. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(1), 231-259. Sharts-Engel, N. (1989). An American experience of pregnancy and childbirth in Japan. Birth, 16(2), 81-86.
58. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.
59. Shipman, S. D. (2015). The Role of Self-awareness in Developing Global Competence: A Qualitative Multi-case Study. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Capstones. Paper 21.
60. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
61. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd. ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
62. Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research: A comprehensive guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
63. Smith, J. K. (1984). The problem of criteria for judging interpretive inquiry. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 6(4), 379-391.
64. Smith, J. K. (1990). Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 167-187). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
65. Sobo, E. J., Seid, M., & Gelhard, L. R. (2006). Parent‐Identified Barriers to Pediatric Health Care: A Process‐Oriented Model. Health services research, 41(1), 148-172.
66. Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition). (s. 443-466). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
67. Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies. 6(3), 374-385.
68. Thomas, N. P., & Nyce, J. M. (1998). Qualitative research in LIS: Redux: A response to a [re] turn to positivistic ethnography. The Library Quarterly, 68(1), 108-113.
69. Thorne, S. (1997). The art (and science) of critiquing qualitative research. In J. M. Morse (Ed.). Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue (s. 117-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
70. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Interpretive Sociology (Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
71. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537.
72. Wynd, C. A., Schmidt, B., & Schaefer, M. A. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(5), 508-518.
73. Yıldırım, K. (2010). Nitel araştırmada niteliği arttırma. İlköğretim Online. 9 (1), 79-92.
74. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Fourth Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.