______________________________________________________________________________________________

Subject PSYCHOLOGY

Paper No and Title PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

Module No and Title M11: Validity

Module Tag PSY_P3_M11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Learning Outcomes

2. Introduction

3. Validity
3.1 Validity in quantitative measurement

3.2 Validity in qualitative tradition

3.3 Two broad methods of validity in qualitative research

3.4 Validity and the rationale behind qualitative research

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

3.5 A comprehensive view of validity in

qualitative research

4. Summary

1. Learning Outcomes

After going through this module, one can expect to:

· Have an elemental understanding of what validity in qualitative tradition entails and how
it deviates from the traditional sense of validity used in quantitative methods.
· Know about two broad methods to validity generally employed by qualitative
researchers
· Understand how validity concerns changes with respect to different purpose of qualitative
research
· Appreciate a comprehensive understanding of validity in qualitative research employed
by considering various approaches

2. Introduction

This module describes the process of establishing validity in qualitative research by first
explaining validity in positivist (quantitative) tradition, and then it points how validity in
qualitative heritage differs from it and what criteria are involved in its determination. It then talks
about the two broad approaches used to ascertain validity in qualitative research and how validity
concerns varies owing to the different purpose of carrying out the research. It lastly, advocates the
view of having a holistic approach to validity determination in qualitative research paradigm.

3. Validity

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

3.1 Validity in quantitative measurement

• In quantitative research, validity determines whether the test developed actually measures
the concept it was supposed to measure and lastly how authentic the research results are.

• Within this research perspective, validity is rather the correlation of the test with some
outside independent criteria, which are regarded by the experts as the best measure of the
trait/ability being measured by the test. (A.K. Singh,2006)

• Researchers generally estimate validity by asking an array of questions, and looking for
answers in the research of others.

• In the quantitative tradition, validity results from the culmination of various empirical
concepts such as objectivity, evidence, actuality, reasoning about facts, deduction and
mathematical data.

• In this sense validity simply represents the evidences supporting the inference that is
made out by the researcher on the basis of the test scores.

• In a broad sense, validity is concerned with generalizability. A measure which is valid

means that its conclusion can be generalized in relation to the general population.

• In quantitative research validity (which presupposes objective reality) mainly involves

establishing

internal validity, which is an indicator of the strength of the relation between cause and
effect

external validity, which denotes how generalizable the findings are

3.2 Validity in qualitative tradition

• Validity in qualitative research is a complex issue as the qualitative paradigm advocates

there is no one truth that can be achieved and also considers knowledge as subjective.
Hence, the criteria for determining validity can only be broad and subjective.

• Thus, in qualitative research validity entails estimating the degree of correspondence

between researchers’ alleged possession of knowledge and the research participants’
construction of reality being studied (Cho & Trent, 2006:320).

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

• In order to judge the soundness of qualitative

research, Guba and Lincoln (1985) suggested several alternative criteria wherein the
traditional criteria of internal & external validity of quantitative research get translated
into credibility and transferability.

§ Credibility involves establishing the believability or plausibility of the qualitative

research results from the participant’s viewpoint. The phenomena of interest is explained
solely from the participant’s perspective and the participants are the exclusive judges of
the credibility of results.

§ Transferability denotes the degree to which the qualitative research results can be
generalized or replicated in other contexts or settings. It isn’t an easy task in qualitative
research. It is the primary responsibility of the qualitative researcher. The qualitative
researcher can improve transferability by thoroughly discussing the tenets that were
central to the research and by elaborating upon the research context. To "transfer" the
results to a different

context, the researcher has to use his discretion in terms of evaluating how sensible the
transfer is.

• Later the concept of authenticity and morality (Angen 2000) were identified additionally
as important criteria for validity.

§ Authenticity means that the true purpose of the research is clear. Research serves to lend
voice to the participants and empower them. Reciprocity is ensured by determining what
has been given back to the community via research endeavour. Respect of researcher-
participant relationship is maintained

§ Morality or ethical validity entails understanding that the decisions we make amidst the
research process also has political and ethical implications–-Was the research effective in
targeting the population? Did the research facilitate learning? Is research helpful to target
population? Are there alternative explanation?

3.3 Two broad methods of validity in qualitative research

Over the last few years two distinct methods of understanding validity have surfaced amidst the
qualitative research literature. One method, the transactional approach is rooted in active
interplay between the inquiry and the research participants which takes place with the help of a
range of techniques. Second, a more elemental method defines validity by questioning the very
concept of validity, even a constructed one (Lather, 1986; Wolcott, 1990) .This refutation or so to
say, rejection of validity judges’ work to be valid only if it signals towards eventually achieving
an exemplary condition for which the research process was carried out. This is called
transformational validity
PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods
MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

· Transactional validity
It is an interactive process between the researcher, the researched, and the collected data.
Validity as a transactional process aims to eliminate misunderstandings and achieving an
intersection between the informants’ realities and the researchers’ interpretations. This is
accomplished by revisiting the pool of experiences and idiosyncrasies collected and
analyzed. The goal is to attain higher degree of unanimity and accuracy. It furthers the
goal of establishing the ‘credibility’ of qualitative research. The active interplay between
the inquiry and the research participant is achieved through a range of techniques which
are described hereunder-:

§ Member checking: it is the most pivotal means of establishing ‘credibility’. It is a process

that occurs throughout the inquiry in which collected data is ‘played back’ to the
informant to check for perceived accuracy and reactions (Cho & Trent, 2006:322). It is
hoped that the informants agree that reformation of their account by the researcher is fair
even if they is a discrepancy between the two accounts. If this approval is not achieved,
then, it is necessary on the part of the researcher to acknowledge this incongruity. The
qualitative researchers are required to document and write precisely, ask for feedback and
report back fully.

§ Bracketing: in qualitative research project, the researcher is the exclusive tool for
investigation across all the stages of the research. Thus, the transmission of the
researcher’s subjective assumptions, values, interests and emotions is inevitable within
and across the research project. Bracketing is a method used by researchers in a
preventive manner to lessen the detrimental effects of unnoticed preconceptions related to
research interfering with the research process. Consequently it the usefulness of the
project. Several methods of bracketing are

a) Writing memo, across all stages of data collection and reflecting upon the researcher’s
involvement with the data. Memos can take the form of conjectural notes which explain
the cognitive process of conducting research, notes detailing the methodology adopted
and observational remarks that allow the researcher to explore his/her own feelings about
the research endeavour.

b) Engaging in interviews with an outside source to reveal and bring into knowledge
preconceptions and biases. Bracketing interviews can uncover themes that may serve as
obstacles in the research process and cloud the researcher’s ability to listen ably to
respondents or trigger emotional responses in the researcher that may rule out on further
exploration.

c) Maintaining a journal to reflect back, in which judgements and pre conceived notions
are glaringly identified from the beginning to the end of the research process. This also
accentuates the researchers’ ability to sustain a reflexive stance. Aspects to investigate in
the reflexive journal include: the researchers’ reasons for undertaking the research;

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

suppositions regarding gender, sexual orientation,

race/traditions, socioeconomic status; locating the
researcher in the power hierarchy of the research; the researcher’s personal value system;
role clash amidst participant and researcher,; feelings such as blame or disenchantment
that may signify presuppositions; and whether the researcher chooses to write in the first
or third person

§ Triangulation: Triangulation method used by qualitative researchers, verify and establish

validity in research studies by approaching a research question from multiple viewpoint
(Guion et al., 2001). There are five kinds of triangulation:
a) Data triangulation involves employing diverse sources of information in order to amplify
the validity of a study. It is the most popular and simplest to implement.

b) Investigator triangulation involves using variety of investigators who take part in the
process of analyzing the data. If there analysis yields the same conclusion then we would
have confidence in this process and would only increase with further such consensus.
c) Theory triangulation involves the utilization of multiple standpoints to interpret a single
set of data. Additionally professionals outside of a particular field of study are employed.
It is believed that individuals from different disciplines or positions offer different
perspectives.

d) Methodological triangulation utilizes various qualitative and quantitative methods in

research. For example, results obtained from questionnaires, focus groups interviews
could be equated to see if similar results are being found.

e) In environmental triangulation the use of variety of locations, settings, and other key
aspects similar to the environment in which the research took place, such as the time, day,
or season. The focus is on finding out which environmental aspects, if any, might change
the nature of information that is observed during the research. If the results remain
constant under varying environmental conditions, then validity has been established.

· Transformational validity

The notion of transformational validity aims to define validity by questioning the very notion of
validity and addressing the concerns of some qualitative researchers who are interested in
demystifying the value-laden nature of social, cultural, and political meanings in macro and micro
contexts (Cho & Trent, 2006:324). The notion of validity concerns itself not simply with the
application of certain explicit techniques. And there is no one set of right techniques, just as there
is no one correct meaning or perspective, for meanings are social constructions and multiple
perspectives on a topic yield multiple meanings. Thus one should acknowledge alternative
notions of validity with the underlying aim of achieving social justice, intensive understandings,
encompassing visions and other pivotal aims of qualitative research. In this respect, validity of a
research is a byproduct of the resultant actions dictated by the research endeavor.
Methodologically, researchers propose a transgressive (moving beyond the acceptable
boundaries) method to validity that highlights a higher level of self-reflexivity [Lather (1986),
PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods
MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Richardson (1997)]. For example, qualitative researchers are

emboldened to scrutinize meanings that are taken on face
value and to engage in analysis in which meanings are both demystified and redefined in a way
that makes initial insinuation more pertinent. The validity propositions involving transformational
approach consists of -

‘Catalytic validity’ is described as the extent to which the research capacitates and unshackles the
research subjects (Scheurich, 1996) and also ‘pragmatic validity’ that addresses the issue of power,
i.e. where is the control to choose the desired results of a study? (Kvale, 1995)

3.4 Validity and the purposes of qualitative research

The validity concerns differ with respect to different purposes of undertaking qualitative research.
We shall now look upon how the process view of validity is embedded in the Donmoyer’s (2001)
structure of five overall purposes capturing current qualitative research-:

· Validity in the ‘Truth’ seeking purpose:

‘Truth’ seeking convention of qualitative inquiry supposes that there should be congruity
between a researcher’s explanation of some occurrence and what has really happened or been
perceived to happen. The researcher utilizes a theoretical framework that directs data collection
and interpretation in a very procedural way. The chief concern here is discovering causal
relationships and to draw conclusions that are replicable in other contexts.

Validity as a process in this purpose is progressive induction, through which data need to be
assembled, examined, comprehended, triangulated, and thus modeled through a credible,
corresponding account.

The most important validity criterion is the utilization of technical member checks and
triangulation. Member checking strengthens the certainty of the participants’ constructions, and
triangulation authenticates and analyze specific facts collected across data sources.

Thus, the ‘Truth’ finding tradition solely employs the transactional approach to validity concerns.

· Validity in the Thick description purpose

This tradition focuses on explaining inimitable, characteristic meaning and perspectives created
by individuals and groups who live in a particular context (Cho & Trent, 2006:328). The
emphasis is laid upon creating texts which captures rich descriptions and intricacies that
encourages in-depth interpretations. Supporters of the thick description purpose believe that
congruence between reality and texts is neither achievable nor necessary; it is the interpretive
element that is pivotal.

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Validity as a course in the thick description purpose is

holistic and dictates prolonged engagement (Cho & Trent,
2006:328). Given the fact that meanings that people construct are typically characteristic, thus
their understanding should take into account all things as a whole. Furthermore, an understanding
of participants’ worldviews under study may be inadequate without grounding meanings in a
context. Hence persistent and prolonged engagement from the side of the researcher is viewed as
an essential condition.

Major validity standards that should be met are: (1) the degree to which data are presented in
detail; (2) the researcher’s capability in understanding the daily life of his or her participants (3)
repeated member checking and triangulation as to ensure transactional validity.

Transactional methods are apparent, but, the concept of transformative validity may also come to
the forefront in this purpose.

· Validity in the Developmental purpose

This purpose basically involves examination of what happens over time and an investigation into
explaining how things make progress across stages. Developmental researchers target collecting
rich documentation reflecting historical events or occurences.

Validity as a process in the developmental purpose falls into categorical schemes or stages that
entail an array of mutually exclusive premises or developments situated in a particular time
period.

The major validity criteria carrying out ongoing member checks, rather than a comprehensive
member check at the end of the research report procedure and also to triangulate the data
obtained.

Validity in the developmental purpose is primarily transactional, but can also be transformational
if the primary principle of the research account impacts subsequent organizational developments

· Validity in the Personal Essay purpose

The goal of the personal essay purpose is to discover the meanings constructed by the research
participant, but at the same time, the researcher’s subjective interpretation is highlighted as well.
Personal essay purpose emphasizes upon personal experiences and construction of personal
experiences.

The validity processes in this purpose is described as reflexive and aesthetic stand adopted by the
researcher in generating the research account.

Validity criteria comprises of self-assessment of experience and public appeal of personal

opinion. Self-assessment refers to the solo display of the researcher’s construction of self on his

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

or her own accord. The self is understood in relation to a

new experience around a new issue which is displayed as
public appeal of personal opinion that offers the reader a new viewpoint from which he/she can
view the issue at hand. (Cho & Trent, 2006:331).

Transformative validity is apparently self-evident in personal essay purpose.

· Validity as in the Praxis/ Social change purpose

An essential component of the praxis/social change purpose of qualitative research is to be found
in the interplay between researchers and researched. In order for authentic change to occur,
collaborative relationships between researcher and researched should be manifested during (and
after) the research process. Authority, power, or privilege deployed (implicitly or explicitly) from
the side of the researcher needs to be deconstructed (Cho & Trent, 2006:331).

Validity as a progression in this purpose mandates inquiry with participants and on behalf of
participants. Validity claims is a byproduct of the degree to which the participants are
synergistically engaged co-researchers in the research process.

The primary validity criteria are (1) member checks as reflexive, the back and forth, recursive
consent sought from the participants who is the object of study, in the process of reconstructing
their records. Reflexive member checking seeks to elucidate a better illustration of the lived
experience of the participants being studied; (2) critical reflexivity of self, a window for the
researcher to explicitly acknowledge how his own subjectivity has been progressively confronted
and transformed in relation to his collaborative interaction with the participant and
(3) Reconstruction of the state of affairs, in which ‘readers are able to differently view the world
in which we live and to keenly engage themselves in changing this world.

Validity in the praxis/ social change purpose is significantly transformative in essence.

3.5 A comprehensive view of validity in qualitative research

Employment of various methods such as bracketing, member checking and triangulation on the
researcher’s part doesn’t ensure the credibility of the report nor does it warrant validity in
entirety. The use of transactional validity techniques can be an essential but never adequate
provision. Researchers have proposed a comprehensive dialogue of validity in qualitative
research by reflecting greatly on what matters primarily to the problem. The process of validity
enquiry doesn’t create a distinctive either/or choice between transactional validity criteria and
transformational validity aims. The comprehensive view values a repeated (moving back and

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

forth), opens process in qualitative inquiry and offers us an

investigative instrument by which to recognize an
operational relationship among the research rationale, questions, and procedures. The
comprehensive conception considers the budding nature of new purposes, yet to be anticipated
re/presentations, and a variability that is tolerant and accommodating of new knowledge rather
than refuting and dismissing it. It emphasizes a recursive validity in which the informants are
engaged throughout the investigation, not just during often brief data collection and their
viewpoints are valued acutely and persistently. A researcher’s account is taken to be validated if it
is poly-vocal and the themes that emerge in the report resonate with other similar research
projects. Finally, the eclectic approach to validity maintains narrative constructions that make
explicit the validity approaches incorporated and the rationale behind it. The emphasis here is on
the explanation of researcher moves, judgment, and concepts.

4. Summary

· Accounting for validity is a lot more complex and laborious task in qualitative research
than in quantitative research as the latter propagates the view of a single external reality
while the former holds the notion of multiple realities. Validity in qualitative research is
tried to establish by determining the congruence between researcher’s claim about
knowledge and the research participant’s construction of reality that is being studied.

· The major criteria for judging the validity of qualitative research endeavour mainly
involve establishing credibility, transferability, authenticity of the researcher’s account
and ensuring of morality and ethical values during the research process.

· The two general methods to validity are Transactional method, which involves active
interplay between the researcher and the participants by means of a series of techniques
and Transformational method, that focuses on the emancipatory nature of research, seeks
to empower the researched via the research process and advocates to achieve social
justice, deeper understanding and broader vision on the research topic.

· An attempt to seek alternative view of validity is made by probing Donmoyer’s structure

of five principles in qualitative research and extending it to the issues of validity.

· Lastly, it has been suggested that a variety of purposeful approaches can be combined by
the qualitative researcher in order to obtain a ‘holistically’ valid results.

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity
______________________________________________________________________________________________

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. :PSY_P3: Qualitative Methods

MODULE No. :M11 : Validity