 |
|
|
|
|
Establishing validity In Chapter 6, we describe some frequently used techniques for estimating validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Generally, these techniques do not apply to qualitative studies because data are in the form of words and descriptions contained in the narrative prepared by the investigator, not in the form of numbers that can be subjected to statistical analysis. Different techniques, therefore, are used for asserting validity in qualitative investigations. A field investigator has to convince readers that the observations reported in the narrative and the conclusions included in his or her report are free of bias or error. This effort is part of the data collection process and proceeds through all stages or analysis. And this is why triangulation is so important. Each major point has to be backed up with evidence of some kind - repeated observation of certain behavior or collaboration from several qualified persons. Generalizing from a qualitative study Generalizing conclusions from a field study is also different from that for a quantitative study. In the latter approach, the sample is designed to allow for empirical generalization of results to the population from which the sample was drawn. Most observational and other qualitative studies are conducted within one or, at most, several sites. These sites cannot be considered as representative of any larger population of similar sites. Even if it could be argued that they are, the sample of one or several sites would be too small to support any empirical generalizing. How then can an investigator hope to extend conclusions to contexts other than the one studied? One answer to this question is that precise scientific generalization may not be the objective of the investigation. Instead, a field investigation may be conducted for its practical, applied value. If the purpose of a field study in a community were to help the government authorities develop plans to assist the community to stemming the spread of AIDS, for example, practical recommendations based on evidence-based recommendations would substitute for scientific conclusions and generalizations However, scientific generalizations can also be derived from qualitative data. Doing so, however, requires considerable skill in conceptual analysis. The investigator seeks to identify critical concepts and to establish relationships among them. Using these empirically established relationships, the investigator builds a conceptual or theoretical explanation for behavior that was observed. The resulting explanation is then tested against existing theory as a final way of checking its validity. This approach goes by the name of grounded theory because any theoretical explanation that is developed is based on or grounded in the descriptive data collected by the observer. For more information on this approach to generalizing the results of qualitative data, we suggest you consult one of the many books devoted to qualitative research. Personal qualifications Fieldwork can be exciting and highly rewarding: It also requires a range of skills and abilities, and a lot of patience. Test yourself against the criteria listed in Box 13.5. Do you have the combination of personal qualities and the writing and analytical skills needed? If you think you do, you might want to undertake a brief period of participant observation with some group to test yourself. The results would be a further and more realistic test of how well you will probably perform as a field researcher.
|