Validity in Qualitative Research

Robin Whittemore, Susan K. Chase and Carol Lynn Mandle (2001). Qualitative Health Research. 11 (4), 522-537.

Abstract:
Much contemporary dialogue has centered on the difficulty of establishing validity criteria in qualitative research. Developing validity standards in qualitative research is challenging because of the necessity to incorporate rigor and subjectivity as well as creativity into the scientific process. This article explores the extant issues related to the science and art of qualitative research and proposes a synthesis of contemporary viewpoints. A distinction between primary and secondary validity criteria in qualitative research is made with credibility, authenticity, criticality, and integrity identified as primary validity criteria and explicitness, vividness, creativity, thoroughness, congruence, and sensitivity identified as secondary validity criteria.

Reading the historical development of validity issues, the authors discussed three types of tensions.

1. Tension Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

"Despite the incongruency between quantitative epistemology and qualitative methodology, translated standards of validity have proven to be useful criteria for demonstrating rigor and legitimacy of qualitative research. Guba and Lincoln (1989) advanced this work by proposing standards that were more reflective of specific threats to qualitative research." (pp. 523-524)

2. Tension Between Epistemological Purism and Pluralism

3. Tension Between Rigor and Creativity

"Creativity must be preserved within qualitative research, but not at the expense of the quality of the science. Creative work supports the discovery of the not yet known, going beyond previously established knowledge and challenging accepted thinking (Marshall, 1990). However, it is essential that qualitative work should be highly creative at the same time that it is analytically rigorous and explicit (Patton //--page break--// 1990). Creativity in and of itself will not contribute to sound science. Elegant and innovative thinking can be balanced with reasonable claims, presentation of evidence, and the critical application of methods." (pp. 526-527)


The authors pointed out there is no championing terms to articulate validity criteria in qual. Yet, they call Lincoln and Guba (1985, Naturalistic Inquiry: "credibility" for validity ) "the staying power." Yet, they argued, "validity is an accurate term and does provide the opportunity for criteria to be developed that are reflective of the tenets of the interpretive perspective" (pp. 527).


The authors wrote:

"Validity cannot be assumed, and presentation of research findings must invite the opportunity for critical reflection by consumers. The importance of explicating “how we claim to know what we know” (Altheide & Johnson, 1994, p. 496) is as essential as the claim to what we know." (p 535)

[It implies validity is self-reflection on the research process: authentic, rigor, moral]