Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Quality:
Module 3
Ryan Bradshaw
EDRS 822
Dr. Baily
QUALITY: MODULE 3
The validity of a qualitative research project’s findings take on a different meaning when
they come from a constructivist viewpoint. Humans create meaning of each situation based on Commented [SB1]: Why? Wouldn’t it be different for any
viewpoint to another viewpoint?
their own interpretations, which are shaped by their own experiences and cultures. Different
individuals will develop strikingly different understanding of the same event as a result (Crotty,
1998, p. 47). Cho and Trent (2006) believe articulate that researchers are only able to create Commented [SB2]: Would be a better word choice – since you
can’t really say that you know what they believe…
reconstructions and interpretations. Crotty (1998, pp. 47-48) makes the point that there is
therefore no one true or valid interpretation of a phenomenon, only useful interpretations. Hatch
(2002, p. 180) adds that “interpretations are constructed by researchers”, the purpose of which is
In the earlier example of Fish’s students interpreting the names on the chalkboard to be a Commented [SB3]: Remember that this example might not be
relevant to someone who does not know the text.
poem rather than simply a list of names of authors for the assigned readings, the student’s
interpretation of a poem was, at that time, true in their minds, even though it was ultimately false
(Crotty, 1998, p. 47). To them, based on the information that was available to them at the time,
they deduced that it was a poem, which was their interpretation of the information provided. In a
constructivist viewpoint, this example illustrates that it is not possible to confirm the findings as
true fact, but it is possible to demonstrate that the findings are the best interpretation available by
using as much information as possible to construct our reality on the subject. Cho and Trent
(2006) suggest that under a constructivist view, “validity can never be achieved, but instead
needs to be checked endlessly”. Crotty (1998), p. 58) adds that constructivism “suggests that
each one’s way of making sense of the world is as valid and worthy of respect as any other” (p.
58), adding validity to each individual’s interpretation and suggesting that there can be no one Commented [SB4]: Check for APA like this throughout.
ultimate ‘truth’.
2
QUALITY: MODULE 3
that the believability of a statement or claim of knowledge, based on the evidence and argument
offered in support of said statement or claim, is the general notion of validity. He adds that
occasionally validity is granted solely because of the individual who made the statement of
claim, such as a well renowned researcher in a community of practice. Previous knowledge and
beliefs may also play a role in a community’s willingness to believe in a knowledge claim
(Polkinghorne, 2007). I consider that the same is true for individuals, as their constructed past
experiences and personal opinions, as well as the source of the information, will play a role in
Interviews are used by qualitative researchers to “uncover the meaning structures that
participants use to organize their experiences and make sense of their worlds” (Hatch, 2002, p.
91). Hatch (2002, p. 23) believes that constructivist interviewers and the interviewees work Commented [SB5]: See above
together to co-construct understanding that is then reported as the interpretation of the data. He
also suggests that the constructivist viewpoint works well with informal interviews as they are a
means for the interviewer and interviewee to work together to create understandings (Hatch,
2002, p. 93).
I believe in both Hatch and Crotty’s views on constructivist validity in that there is no
one ‘truth’ to be found, however, it is possible for me to work with my research subjects to co-
construct an accurate interpretation of their reality. As Ravitch and Carl (2016, p. 186) state,
“validity, in qualitative research, refers to the ways that researchers can affirm that their findings
are faithful to participants’ experiences.” It is not about finding a ‘truth’, but about ensuring the
study was completed with rigor and quality in mind (Ravitch & Carl, 2016, p. 186).
3
QUALITY: MODULE 3
In 1981, with the field of qualitative inquiry still in its infancy and still called
“naturalistic inquiry” (Guba, 1981, p?), Guba and Lincoln (1981, p. 104) suggested four
‘“translations’” of scientific terms related to validity into new “naturalistic” terms. Internal Commented [SB6]: Actually – I would italicize these terms
validity, related to the truth value of the project, became credibility. External
Reliability, dealing with the consistency of the study, became dependability. Lastly, objectivity,
Anfara Jr., Brown, and Mangione (2002) summarized Guba and Lincoln’s work by
offering suggested strategies to be used for each of the four aspects. For credibility,
recommended strategies included member checks, using peer debriefing, triangulation, and
sampling, and providing thick description. Dependability is gained by creating an audit trail, peer
examination, and triangulation. Confirmability is also enhanced by using practice reflexivity and
triangulation.
Rodwell (1998) also looked at Guba and Lincoln’s work, but from a constructivist
perspective. Her views on credibility, dependability, and transferability are very similar to
Anfara Jr. et al.’s (2002). However, she makes the important constructivist addition to the
argument that confirmability does not equate to realizing a ‘truth’, only that the findings are tied
to data. An external auditor could identify and follow the logic used by the researcher to get from
raw data to final product. Yet, another researcher could use the same data and construct their
4
QUALITY: MODULE 3
Cho and Trent (2006) created the label of ‘transactional validity’, which they define as
“an interactive process between the researcher, the researched, and the collected data that is
aimed at achieving a relatively higher level of accuracy and consensus by means of revisiting
facts, feeling, experiences, and values or beliefs collected and interpreted.” They highlight
member checking, as part of Guba and Lincoln’s (1981) credibility realm, as a key component of
the transactional process in order to engage participants to ensure “their realities correspond with
the interpretations brought forth by the researchers” (Cho & Trent, 2006). Cho and Trent (2006)
also identify triangulation as part of the transactionalist approach to bolstering the integrity of a
research project.
Ravitch and Carl (2016, p. 188) caution researchers that rigor in qualitative studies does
not need to be at the same level as a quantitative study, as it can be assessed in many ways. They
continue that “qualitative researchers should develop validity approaches that align with the
research questions, goals, and contexts of their studies” (Ravitch & Carl, 2016, p. 188). Commented [SB7]: Ryan – this section does a good job
documenting the different camps and arguments – but you will want
to pull this together to how it impacts you and your study, but it also
has to take into account, what the reader needsto take away from all
Ensuring Quality and Rigor this back and forth with the authors.
In order to ensure that quality and rigor that Ravitch and Carl (2016, p. 186) recommend
must be present in this work, I plan to utilize the following techniques to ensure that the
participants’ experiences are recorded as faithfully as possible, while heading the advice to use
Quick transcription and immersion in the data. Hatch (2002, p. 116) recommends
quickly transcribing the interviews in order to complete an initial analysis as soon as possible. He
believes that this can assist in assessing the effectiveness of the interviews and identify any
problems that can be addressed in subsequent interviews. If done properly, it can reshape
5
QUALITY: MODULE 3
subsequent interviews and help identify potential gaps in the data before it is too late to address
Hatch (2002, p. 181) also recommends immersing oneself in the data, by reading and re-
reading the data, to the point that “whatever impressions are formed throughout the analytic
process are considered within the context of the overall data set.” This is necessary to construct
an interpretation that makes the subject understandable for the reader (Hatch, 2002, p. 181). I
intend to use both of these techniques to add to the quality and rigor of the study. Commented [SB8]: So if you are going to use these techniques
– tell the reader how? How quickly will you transcribe? How much
will you re-read? Make these connections back to your research.
Member checks. Member checks, detailed in the Guba and Lincoln’s (1981) credibility
description, can take place at multiple junctures throughout the interview and analysis process, in
both formal and informal check-ins with the participants (Rodwell, 1998, p. 99). During
Wolcott (as cited in Hatch, 2002, p. 116) also recommends asking interviewees direct questions
about the research process to conclude the interviews, for example “Are there topics we should
explore that I haven’t asked about?” Commented [SB9]: But is that really a member check? Would
you want to think about asking them questions about your
interpretations as you go through the interview as well?
I also intend to share my reconstructed analysis of the interviews with the participants, by
emailing the participants each a copy of my interpretation of the interview transcripts and
requesting their feedback via email on my interpretation. Guba (1981) and Hatch (2002, p. 188) Commented [SB10]: There a LOT of pros and cons about this –
so think about why and what you might get out of this…When they
see something in writing and it looks “not as polite” as they wanted
both identify this as a vital part of a constructivist researcher’s desire to co-construct meaning it to – what if they pull the data? What if they remove themselves
from the study at that point? What if you have to make negative
portrayals based on the information….This is a laudible thing to
with their participants as partners in the process. The email will include a series of guiding want to do – but it should not be naively done either – it can have
huge ramifications on you work. Easy in theory – not so in practice.
questions for the participants to consider when reviewing the interpreted interview transcripts, as
6
QUALITY: MODULE 3
4. Are there specific areas you would like to clarify or add to?
5. Are there assumptions and /or biases that you see underneath anything I have
written or said that you feel I should challenge? Commented [SB11]: Good questions – but again – think about
it – and what it one goes south – what happens then.
Peer debriefing. As suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1981), utilizing a peer who
understands my methodology, but who is not involved with my research, can assist in limiting
my subjectivity on findings (Rodwell, 1998, p. 99; Ravitch & Carl, 2016, p. 231). As I have been Commented [SB12]: And can identify assumptions.
deeply involved in Club Sports as an administrator for almost a decade, my views on the subject
have been shaped by my previous experience. A peer reviewer can assist in the process by asking
tough questions, providing support, offering technical advice, and helping to work through
strong feelings that I may have towards one viewpoint or another (Rodwell, 1998, p. 99).
Rodwell (1998, p. 99) also advises that the researcher and the peer reviewer both keep reflexive
journals to track their discussions. Ravitch and Carl (2016, p. 231) add that utilizing a peer
reviewer throughout the data collection and analysis process can help challenge the researcher’s
“assumptions, biases, preconceived notions, and how each and all of these shape the ways that Commented [SB13]:
[they] think about the data and the people in the study”. Utilizing a peer reviewer and a
journaling process will help reduce any subjectivity I bring to the project.
involves the using a variety of data sources, to the extent that information should not be accepted
unless it can be verified and documented from at least two sources. Cho and Trent (2006)
7
QUALITY: MODULE 3
describe triangulation, as part of their transactional validity label, more bluntly as “verifying
facts through multiple sources”. Data should also be collected from various sources (Guba, 1981)
to provide for multiple voices to be heard in order to triangulate data and provide a “holistic
understanding of the situation and converging conclusions” (Anfara Jr, et al., 2002). Rodwell
(1998, p. 99) states that “triangulation should be used for comparison, distillation, or convergent
validation, or to see if the information holds up under comparison to something else.” She also
recommends using a reflexive journal to document the triangulation (Rodwell, 1998, p. 99).
triangulation is having researchers describe the data and sources they used carefully to allow
readers to make their own conclusions on the trustworthiness of the study. Ravitch and Carl
(2016, p. 195) highlight that the goal is not necessarily to seek convergence, but to seek out and
In this study, data triangulation, the act of collecting data from different people (Ravitch
& Carl, 2016, p. 195), will be used to collect data from a wide range of individuals who had
previously participated in club sports at the institution. Special attention will be paid to interview
participants from different genders, ages, income levels, and race/ethnicities, as well as
participants from various club sports, as to triangulate the data and enhance validity in the study.
These efforts will also be clearly described in the final project to allow readers to judge the
Audit trail. Guba (1981) suggests the establishment of an audit trail as part of the
dependability and confirmability aspects of trustworthiness. The goal of the audit trail is to
enable an external auditor to look at the data that was collected, the process that was used for
8
QUALITY: MODULE 3
data collection and analysis, and the process used to interpret the data in order to validate the
process used in the study, as part of a dependability audit (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 242).
Rodwell (1998, p. 100) recommends keeping records of collected and analyzed data, including
process notes and journals of decisions made, to enable a dependability audit to be completed.
She also mentions that peer reviewers use a reflexive journal to document their meetings with the
researcher. An audit trail of all processes from data collection to final publication, including
reflexive journals from myself and my peer reviewer, will be compiled through the research to
allow for an external auditor to review and provide assurances of validity to my process.
Inherent Biases
Due to the fact that I have worked in collegiate recreation, specifically with club sports,
over the course of the last decade, my views on the subject have been constructed by my
experiences to date. I have inherent biases towards the value of club sports to the collegiate
experience of students and believe strongly students gain many transferable skills through their
participation in club sports, as identified by Hall, Forrester, and Borsz (2008) and Flosdorf, Carr,
Wallace Carr, and Pate (2016). I believe that students primarily identify that they acquired these
skills through participating in club sports post-graduation, when they are working in their
careers. In conducting this research, I will have to limit my preconceptions by utilizing the
aforementioned techniques of utilizing a peer reviewer and member checks, in order to enhance
Having worked at three institutions, George Mason University, Mount Royal University,
and Southern Illinois University Carbondale, in my time working in club sports, I have personal
connections to potential study participants at each of these schools. From my work experience, I
9
QUALITY: MODULE 3
also have additional biases and pre-existing views that I have constructed about each of these
colleges. In order to eliminate the risk of bias in this project based on the institution of study, it
will be conducted at a college that fits the requirements previously outlined in this paper at which
I have never had any direct involvement with the administration or operation of their club sports
program.
In working with the subjects of this study, I also need to recognize that the participants
are all donors to the institution that is being used in the study. These donors are of value to that
institution. In having the school’s alumni affairs office agree to have me contact some of their
donors for this project, I will need to assure the office that I will not discourage any of their
donors from donating again in the future and maintain a cordial and positive relationship with the
interviewees. This may play a factor in the ways the interviews are conducted and how far I am
able to push the subjects for descriptive responses, as to ensure that the experience of
participating in the study is a positive one for them that does not dissuade them from future
Lastly, it is important that I recognize my vested interest in the results of this inquiry. As
additional funds to support programs like club sports, which can be very expensive to operate.
Public institutions in the United States have collectively seen their state governments cut over
40% of all funding to higher education between 1980 and 2011 (Mortenson, 2012). This means
that additional funds must come from other sources, such as philanthropic donations, however,
only 8.7% of alumni typically donate to the alma mater (Council for Aid to Education, 2014).
Former club sports participants are a key demographic that have had more engaged experiences
10
QUALITY: MODULE 3
while at the institution, which typically translate into an increased willingness to donate (Monks,
2003; Weerts & Ronka, 2008). This could be the key group to bridge the funding gap for club
sport programs across the country. As a collegiate recreation and club sport professional, who is
professionals, the findings of this study may positively affect the future viability of having
institutions across the country provide club sports programs to students and help keep some of
my colleagues and myself employed. Member checks and peer debriefs will assist in minimizing
Ryan,
This is an excellent paper and really well thought out. I hope you will be able to ensure the
quality you want for your study based on the ideas you are presenting here. I think that you have
applied a lot of this directly to your context and research project – which makes it for a strong
link to chapter 3 if you are going to use this as your dissertation study. I really enjoyed your
voice in class this semester and really look forward to seeing you move through the program!
My best to you!
dr. B
25/25
11
QUALITY: MODULE 3
Refrences
Anfara Jr, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative Analysis on Stage:
Making the Research Process More Public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3),
319-340. doi:10.1177/1468794106065006
Council for Aid to Education. (2014). Voluntary Support of Education 2013. New York, NY:
Author.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Flosdorf, M. L., Carr, B. H., Wallace Carr, J., & Pate, J. R. (2016). An Exploration of the Sport
Club President's Experience. Recreational Sports Journal, 40(2), 106-119.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/rsj.2016-0007
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective Evaluation. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San
Francisco, CA.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications.
12
QUALITY: MODULE 3
Hall, S. L., Forrester, S., & Borsz, M. (2008). A Constructivist Case Study Examining the
Leadership Development of Undergraduate Students in Campus Recreational Sports.
Journal of College Student Development, 49(2), 125-140.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, Albany.
Monks, J. (2003). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective
institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 121-130. doi:10.1016/S0272-
7757(02)00036-5
Mortenson, T. G. (2012, Winter). State Funding: A Race to the Bottom. The Presidency: The
American Council on Education's Magazine for Higher Education Leaders. Retrieved
from http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/state-funding-a-
race-to-the-bottom.aspx
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. E. (2016). Qualitative Research: Brindging the Conceptual,
Theorettical, and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rodwell, M. K. (1998). Social Work Constructivist Research. New York, NY: Garland
Publishing, Inc.
Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2008). Characteristics of Alumni Donors Who Volunteer at their
Alma Mater. Research in Higher Education, 49, 274-292. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9077-
0
13