One of the key criteria addressed by positivist researchers is that of internal validity, in which they seek to ensure that their study measures or tests what is actually intended. According to Merriam (1998), the qualitative investigator’s equivalent concept is analogous to internal validity and deals with the question: “How congruent are the research findings with reality. However, according to the philosophy underlying qualitative research, reality is relative to meaning that people construct within social contexts.
Frequent debriefing sessions between the researcher and his supervisor were important in ensuring credibility of the research process. Through discussion, the vision of the investigator was widened so as other bring to bear other experiences and perceptions. Such Collaborative sessions were used to discuss alternative approaches, and those responsible for the supervision of the study were able to draw attention to flaws in the proposed course of action. The meetings also provided an avenue for the researcher to test his developing ideas and interpretations and allowed for the recognition of his own biases and preferences.
Opportunities for scrutiny of the study by colleagues, peers and other academics were engaged in by the researcher, particularly through …show more content…
It is the person who is the major instrument of data collection and analysis. Alkin, Daillak and White (), go so far as to suggest that readers trust in the researcher is of equal importance to the adequacy of the procedures themselves. The depth of background, qualifications and experience of the investigator is particularly important when the researcher seeks to evaluate the research as it develops. Through the life of the study, the researcher engaged in what Guba and Lincoln termed progressively subjectivity, that is, monitoring of the developing constructs by the
Frequent debriefing sessions between the researcher and his supervisor were important in ensuring credibility of the research process. Through discussion, the vision of the investigator was widened so as other bring to bear other experiences and perceptions. Such Collaborative sessions were used to discuss alternative approaches, and those responsible for the supervision of the study were able to draw attention to flaws in the proposed course of action. The meetings also provided an avenue for the researcher to test his developing ideas and interpretations and allowed for the recognition of his own biases and preferences.
Opportunities for scrutiny of the study by colleagues, peers and other academics were engaged in by the researcher, particularly through …show more content…
It is the person who is the major instrument of data collection and analysis. Alkin, Daillak and White (), go so far as to suggest that readers trust in the researcher is of equal importance to the adequacy of the procedures themselves. The depth of background, qualifications and experience of the investigator is particularly important when the researcher seeks to evaluate the research as it develops. Through the life of the study, the researcher engaged in what Guba and Lincoln termed progressively subjectivity, that is, monitoring of the developing constructs by the