Summer 2005 QDA Faculty Seminar Session 4
Validity of Qualitative Research
Goals for this session
1. Discuss and answer questions about progress on projects
2. Discuss strategies for increasing validity and rigor in qualitative research.
3. Discuss plans for continuing the conversation.
Readings: QSR materials and help files, Thompson
Questions for Discussion
Introductions for those who are attending for the first time (See Session 1 sheet)
Validity
What standards should be used for judging validity/rigor of qualitative research?
Do standards of generalizeability from quantitative research apply in qualitative research? If not what standards should be applied?
How does QDA software help improve validity or rigor? In what ways does it not contribute to validity/rigor?
What is the importance of the plausibility of fit between data and the categories used to describe the data?
What is the importance of having an audit trail?
How can NVivo be used to maintain an audit trail?
What is the importance of explicitly reporting the steps taken in analysis as well as data collection?
How can triangulation be used to enhance rigor?
How does one choose text from interviews to illustrate themes and concepts in writing up the results of qualitative research? Why is it important to report the criteria by which representative excerpts are chosen?
To what degree is acceptance by scientific peers and lay persons part of evaluating the validity of qualitative research?
How can one ensure confirmabilty of research findings (the degree to which findings are based on “reality” rather than on the researcher’s biases).
How does fit with existing bodies of literature help to improve validity/rigor?
Why is qualitative research accepted or not accepted in different disciplines or academic contexts?
Should we continue these discussions about qualitative research? If so in what form?
Additional Useful reading
Baxter, Jamie and John Eyles. 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing 'rigour' in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22:505-525.