A challenge that arises in qualitative research is in assuring the quality and trustworthiness of research. A researcher may hope that the quality of research craftsmanship produces knowledge claims that are so powerful and convincing in their own right they carry the validation with them, like a strong piece of art. However, seldom does this actually occur. The value of qualitative research must be argued for and justified against established quantitative criteria. If lacking in this, qualitative researchers subject themselves to criticism from positivists who claim that qualitative research is merely a subjective assertion supported by unscientific method.
The concepts of reliability, validity and generalizability provide the fundamental framework for conducting and evaluating traditional quantitative research. Qualitative researchers however argue against these criteria, stating them as being reductionist and misinterpretative of the complex and diverse system of interrelationships. Consequently, they have instead replaced them with alternative criteria developed in response to their specific research ideals. This criteria includes ‘rigor’.
Rigor in qualitative research is often synonymous with the quantitative notion of validity. Validity is the degree to which research truly measures what it intends to measure. This criterion is based upon the supposition that the phenomena being measured possess ‘reality’ in an undisputed and objective sense. However, qualitative research argues that given the social world, it is inaccurate to assume the existence of one unequivocal reality to which all findings must respond. The question it raises instead is whose reality is the research addressing? .
By definition qualitative research is about ‘subjective interpretation’. PR enhances the validity of research through its participation of stakeholders. According to PR, since people are continually acting in the world in relation to others, human action is essentially social. Human action is viewed as a dialogical and dialectical process which seeks to access multiple voices and perspectives. Constructions of reality are viewed as being manifested through the reflective action of people and communities.
In PR subjects of the research are active participants throughout the research process. This procedure ensures validity by preventing the possibility of researchers to observe and interpret findings through the lens of their own interpretive frameworks. Hence, the theorizing of phenomena is not de-contextualized but rather fixed in individuals’ experiences and in their web of meanings. The integrity of the research process as well as the quality of the end product is based upon principles that allow a researcher to“acknowledge that trust and truth are fragile, while enabling them to engage with the messiness and complexity of data interpretation in ways that reflect the lives of participants. That is, valid research should take into account the sociality of human action and address the participative, relational and social aspects.
A much greater degree of validity is attained in PR when research participants are allowed to check the veracity of the material. This means that participants are provided feedback whereby they engage with the material and verify its accuracy. Through this verification process participants help formulate accounts that accurately represent their own experiences and perspectives. The validity of PR therefore exists within its joint and experiential nature, that is, valid research should be a reflection of an interpretation of human action.
Furthermore, PR is dependent on the level of practicality and the degree to which it engages within its socially valuable work. This is referred to as pragmatic validity, whereby in PR the practicality in the context of research is valued. The essential “truth” of the research pertains to the notion of research generating not only individualistic but institutional change. Thus, the concept of validity in PR has been broadened to accommodate a socially conscious and emancipatory discourse.
Another aim in PR is for it to demonstrate catalytic validity. Research that possesses catalytic validity is said to not only display the reality- altering impact of the inquiry process, it also directs this impact so that those under study will gain self- understanding and self- direction. In other words, PR should exhibit conscientization and display emancipatory intent. This means that the research should move those it studies in order understand the world and should be shaped in such a manner as to transform it.
No comments:
Post a Comment