I just saw your comment from my previous Creswell post and thought I would look back at my notes on chapter 10 for a posting ... I guess I missed that one!
Creswell's chapter 10 is on validation and evaluation of information in qualitative research.
What does he mean here? Essentially he is exploring of the role the researcher plays in being truly responsible for the data. This responsibility takes many forms, and the approaches and language used in representing this responsibility differ across the theoretical approaches mentioned by Creswell.
Part of his initial discussion seems to focus on the need for qualitative research to present an understanding of, and commitment to, academic rigor. Information for a study is only important vis-a-vis its relation to the world -- both how was the information collected (where and by whom) and how is it being represented and verified (what is being said and how).
Creswell posits that researchers have an obligation to all sides of these tasks. Methodological approaches are important because they provide the guidelines for validation and evaluation, as well as being tools of verification for the researcher.
Firstly a researcher must begin to understand their own role in the process before anything. This should be articulated for the reader, and in some cases even articulated with the participants. Not only can this provide clarification for the reader, but it also frames the lens from which the researcher is presenting their argument. This illuminates potential compromising situations of power, bias, or ethical dilemma in ways that help frame the findings of the study.
Secondly the researcher must then be certain their method of collection is most appropriate for the study. This can be done in many ways -- considering the advice of other experts, other participants, or by researching relevant literature should all act as guiding principles in deciding what is appropriate for the study. Often the research question itself can be a guide in this process.
The last two items provide a framework of evaluation of the data. This process is both in the actual coding and the subsequent interpretation and re-representation of the data. Creswell states this happens in multiple ways and seems as though it should not be limited to only one or two approaches. Rigor is tested over time -- this process certainly seems as though it could involve a large portion of time for the researcher. Some of this occurs as the researcher seeks saturation in the data, but also through triangulation, member checking, peer review, the use of a cultural ambassador, as well as continued engagement with the literature. It would seem the more voices who are allowed to speak into the process, the clearer it should become for the researcher and therefore the more critical evaluation of the findings can occur. This provides the researcher the ability to affirm findings and also gives the researcher a position of expertise in the area of research.
Certainly other aspects of qualitative research are important, however it would seem to me that a solid qualitative research project in information gathering and design is meaningless should the researcher not carefully consider rigorous validation and evaluation of both the methodological approaches, but also in the findings and presentation of the data.
No comments:
Post a Comment