Our research methods are successful in providing validity, but only to the extent that the researcher utilizes them to the best capacity; validity is increased when careful consideration is given to the particular method used. Critics of external validity must also question how important it is to the study at hand, and whether the experiment is looking to generalize across situations or to further the knowledge of a given theory. It is not so much that our methods are bad, as it is that they aren’t self-correcting. It is the job of the researcher to determine which method is the best match for their study in order to minimize error and maximize validity by controlling for threats within that method. Depending on the method of research, a loss in one form of validity might be worth the trade-off for higher validity in another area more meaningful to the current research.
Based on the information, data has to be put together in order to determine the relevance and usefulness of the information collected. Data obtained from a survey can be used for both descriptive and analytical studies. The information obtained from the research tools have to be valid. Validity exists when the data actually measures what they are supposed to represent. If the data fails to do so, it is misleading and should be neglected.
The authors also pointed out that the framework is suitable when dealing with data from an oral source. The researchers claimed that techniques to establish rigour have been started since the beginning of the study. Establishing rigour in a qualitative study is very important to have valuable research. The authors of the articles claimed that; coherence, relevance, auditability, reflexivity and credibility were all considered relevant to this study and that they were incorporated in different ways within the study. The researchers also failed to examine their own role during analysis of data in preventing any potential bias.
Credibility allows the researcher to verify their interpretations and accuracy of their perspective by returning for further interviews with the participants (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 126). Credibility also refers to how believable the research findings are or the true value of the study. The additional interviews following the examination of data analysis will broaden the study’s credibility. Auditability is the participant showing accountability of the information provided and the transfer of raw data into research findings (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 126). During this study, a detailed description of the participants’ personal experience, environment, and circumstances will be given in a way that others can
Is how believable the results of your research from the perspective of participants and how positive the researchers are of the gathered data if it reflects a truthful information and usually questions with “How do you know that your findings are true and accurate?”. It’s not all about quantity of the data gathered but rather in the quality and content of the findings on hand. In this phase, the authors are doubtful and questions too many things. (Shenton 2004) and another quote stated that to help to eliminate the possible invalid findings, is to cross-reference similar techniques used by the previous researchers (Porter 2007). By the use of these techniques, we are able to evaluate the validity, how genuine the findings are and the completeness of the procedures we have used.
It just has multiple theories, and then one eventually corresponds to the regularities of nature, and that is how science acquires empirically successful theories. All the other theories, that turn out to be empirically inadequate, simply do not survive. So although there is no miracle involved in science’s empirical success, truth is not is not the sole assistant either. He is substantially saying that science has at its disposal many different theories, and upon testing their empirically adequacy, they conclude if it is true or not. That would entail that the aim of science is empirical success first, and truth
Basically, it is working from the ground up and ending with phenomena that are difficult to measure quantitatively. Essentially, any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification.” QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN Krysta can you insert the part you did on this please? Thanks! RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY AS IT RELATES TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS Validity in research is concerned with the accuracy and truthfulness of scientific findings (Le Comple and Goetz 1982). According to Brink (1993), “Reliability is concerned with the consistency, stability and repeatability of the informant’s accounts as well as the investigators’ ability to collect and record information accurately.” Research is said to be reliable if the same or similar results are produced using various methods.
There are many different ways both types of validities can affect research studies. For instance, when it comes to dealing with internal validity there is a threat to the validity when an endogenous change occurs. An endogenous change has a few different types in itself, maturation, testing, and regression. Maturation in this sense appears when an experiment happens over an extended amount of time. The people involved in the experiment change and grow with
When completing an experiment and publishing it, if an idea or theory is expressed that will challenge the already accepted beliefs in the community, peer reviews and others recreating the experiment follow immediately to test how true the statement is. If there is disagreement over the findings of an experiment, the use of disagreement can lead to consensus. The skepticism that typically follows new information leads to the experiment being redone and retested, thus, a consensus is met once the information presented is proven to be true by others. The use of consensus and disagreement is also very important to the formation of new theories. Without the continual agreements and disagreements among people, or the lack of, the development of new ways of thinking simply wouldn’t exist.
Research Methodology Mutlu argued that research method and methodology should be open and transparent as much as possible so that other students or scholars can learn from it. What Mutlu suggested is the pedagogical potential of learning process from failure because the scholars tend to hide their unpredicted incidents that happened during the process and to be professional. However, this kind of omission of failure and covering the process eliminate the learning opportunity for other scholars. Making methodology transparent contributes it's reproducibility. 1.