SOC 7141 Chapter Notes - Chapter 16: Thick Description, Institute For Operations Research And The Management Sciences, Ethnography
16 Nov 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
SOC 7141
CHAPTER 16
STANDARDS OF VALIDATION & EVALUATION
For reference: there is a summary table included on page 282.
Validation & Reliability in Qualitative Research
• Many perspectives exist regarding the importance of validation within the realm of
qualitative methodology. In this case, the textbook sees validation as a construct that is
evolving and includes an understanding of both traditional and contemporary matters
that are required for informing the work of researchers.
• Some authors argue that those who use positivist terminology helps facilitate the
acceptance of the research within a traditional quantitative world as using the terms is a
defensive measure that muddies the water indicating that positivist language is not
adequate for qualitative work.
• To establish trustworthiness of a study, it is suggested that one uses unique terms such
as credibility, authenticity, dependability and confirmability as a naturalist equivalent to
internal, external validation, reliability and objectivity.
• To operationalize these terms, they suggest using what is known as “triangulation” of
data, sources, methods, and investigators to establish credibility as the naturalistic
researcher looks to confirm rather than to object in establishing the value of their data.
• To make sure that the findings are transferable between the researcher and those being
studied, thick description is required. Instead of reliability, they look for dependability
and confirmability through the auditing of the research process.
Moreover, rather than using validation they use terms such as the following: structural
corroboration, consensual validation and referential adequacy as evidence for credibility.
• In structural corroboration, they use multiple types of data to support or contradict the
interpretation, they look for reoccurring behaviors and actions and seek for
disconfirming evidence and contrary interpretations. The weight of the evidence should
be persuasive.
• Moreover, consensual validation requires the opinions of others and refers to an
agreement among others that the descriptions, interpretation and evaluations are
correct. Whereas referential adequacy refers to the importance of criticism and bringing
about complex perception and understanding.
• They have also conceptualized validation with a postmodern view with the following
types: triangulation (drawing upon multiple sources, methods and schemes), construct
validation (recognizing the construct that exist rather than imposing theories or
constructs on informants or context), face validation (a click of recognition) and catalytic
validation (energizing participants in order to know reality to transform it) too
reconceptualize validation. It is pragmatic uncertainty that leads to reconceptualize the
matters of validation.
Document Summary
For reference: there is a summary table included on page 282. Validation & reliability in qualitative research: many perspectives exist regarding the importance of validation within the realm of qualitative methodology. Instead of reliability, they look for dependability and confirmability through the auditing of the research process. Moreover, rather than using validation they use terms such as the following: structural corroboration, consensual validation and referential adequacy as evidence for credibility. In structural corroboration, they use multiple types of data to support or contradict the interpretation, they look for reoccurring behaviors and actions and seek for disconfirming evidence and contrary interpretations. The weight of the evidence should be persuasive: moreover, consensual validation requires the opinions of others and refers to an agreement among others that the descriptions, interpretation and evaluations are correct. It is pragmatic uncertainty that leads to reconceptualize the matters of validation.
