ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Some writers have suggested that qualitative studies should be judged or evaluated according to quite different criteria from those used by quantitative researchers. Lincoln and Guba have propose the two primary criteria for assessing a qualitative study: trustworthiness and authenticity. I. Trustworthiness is made up of four criteria, each of which has an equivalent criterion in quantitative research: Credibility, which parallels internal validity; Transferability, which parallels external validity; Dependability, which parallels reliability; Confirmability, which parallels objectivity.

A major reason for Guba and Lincolns unease about the simple application of reliability and validity standards to qualitative research is that the criteria presuppose that a single absolute account of social reality is feasible. In other words, they are critical of the view that there are absolute truths about the social world that it is the job of the social scientist to reveal. Instead, they argue that there can be more than one and possibly several accounts.

A.Credibility
There can be several possible accounts of an aspect of social reality, it is credibility of the account that a researcher arrives at that is going to determine its acceptability to others. The establishment of the credibility of findings entails both ensuring that research is carried out according to the findings to the members of the social world who were studied for confirmation that the investigator has correctly understood that social world.

B. Transferability
Qualitative researchers are encouraged to produce what Greetz calls this description- that is, rich accounts of the details of culture. Guba and Lincoln argue that a thick description provides others with what they refer to as a database for making judgements about the possible transferability of findings to other milieu.

C. Dependability
Guba and Lincoln propose that the researchers should adopt an auditing approach. This entails ensuring that complete records are kept of all phases of the research process- problem formulation, selection of research participants, fieldwork notes, interview transcripts, data analysis decision, and so on in an accessible manner. Peers would then act as auditors, possibly during the course of the research. Though some problems are associated with the auditing idea. That it is very demanding for the auditors.

D.Confirmability
Complete objectivity is impossible in social research, the researcher can be shown to have acted in food faith i.e being objective and not biased.

II.

Authenticity
These criteria raise wider set of issues concerning the wider political impact of research. These are the criteria.

Fairness. Does the research fairly represent different viewpoints among members of the social setting?? Ontological authenticity. Does the research help members to arrive at a better understanding of their social milieu? Educative authenticity. Does the research help members to appreciate better the perspectives of other members of their social setting? Catalytic authenticity. Has the research acted as an impetus to members to engage in action to change their circumstances? Tactical authenticity. Has the research empowered members to take the steps necessary for engaging in action? The authenticity criteria are thought provoking but have not been influential, and their emphasis on the wider impact of research is controversial.