"To state that reliability and validity are not pertinent to qualitative inquiry places qualitative research in the realm of being not reliable and not valid. Science is concerned with rigor, and by definition, good research must be reliable and valid. If qualitative research is unreliable and invalid, then it must not be science. If it is not science, then why should it be funded, published, implemented, or taken seriously? Turning our backs on such fundamental concepts has cost us dearly. Think. Reconsider. Undo." - Janice Morse
*Required Readings and Activities
Module One: Broad Qualitative Concepts
1.4 Applies reliability, validity and generalizability concepts to qualitative research
A. Readings: Merriam, Chap 10; Eisner, Chap 6 & 9.
(Reading the following articles in chronological order will give you a sense of how qualitaitve researchers have approached the ideas of validity and reliability over time)
*Lincoln, Yvonna. 1995. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol. 1. No. 3. pp275-290.
*Schwandt, Thomas. 1996. Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol. 2. No. 1. pp. 58-73.
Manning, Kathleen. 1997. Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without perscription. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol 3. No. 1. pp 93-115.
Drisko, James. 1997. Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: standards to promote academic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education. Vol 33. No. 1. pp. 185-198.
*Morse, Janice. 1999. Myth #93: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 9. No. 6. pp. 717-718.
Hart, Paul. 2000. Requisite variety: The problem with generic guidelines for diverse genres of inquiry. Environmental Education Research. Vol. 6. No. 1. pp 37-47.
Angen, Maureen. 2000. Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 10. No. 3. pp. 378-396.
B. Web and Other Links:
*Validity in Qualitative Research - Ratcliff -scroll down to find this heading
*Evaluative Criteria - Garman and Piatanida
C. Discussion Starters/Reflective Journal Topics: (Choose one topic and start or continue a discussion thread.)
1. How are the meanings of validity, reliability, and generalizability the same and different in the minds of qualitative and quantitative researchers?
2. Respond to the idea of "ethical validation" (Angen, 2000).
3. Respond to Eisner's statement that we "generalize through formal inference, through attribute analysis, and through image matching." p. 202.
D. Experiences/Activities:
1. Using some raw data , code for "meaning" categories with other colleagues. Compare your results and calculate "inter-rater" reliability (# of agreements divided by total).
*2. Develop your own rubric of how you'll evaluate qualitative studies (this will require you to synthesize the various points in this section and develop and articulate your own ideas). You might want to do this with a small group of peers. (Submit in the assigment box.)
E. Portfolio Documentation:
1. Summary of discussion questions articulating fuzzy points and further questions.
2. Written component of dissertation proposal or methods chapter addressing issues of trustworthiness etc.
3. Synthesis paper of how qualitative researchers view issues of validity, reliability and generalizability.
4. Your own personal rubric of how you'll evaluate qualitative studies.