Approaches ensuring reliability and validity in Qualitative Research

Although qualitative research method always deals with subjectivity, but it still
have the ways to ensure the validity and reliability of qualitative research. There were
several of approaches had been highlighted and suggested by the prominent qualitative
researchers in the past in ensuring the validity and reliability in qualitative research.

For ensuring the qualitative reliability, Yin (2003) carried out a case study
research of design and methods which proposes that researchers required record down the
steps of their research studies as many as possible. Besides, setting up a comprehensive
research protocol as well as database is necessary to ensure the qualitative reliability. On
the other hand, Gibbs (2007) also proposes several ideas of qualitative reliability
procedures in analyzing qualitative data. These include checking transcripts for obvious
mistakes, examine the persistence of the definition of the codes during the process of
coding, coordinate communication among coders and lastly cross-check codes
established by diverse researchers.

On the other hand, Creswell (2009) suggests the use of six major strategies for
ensuring the qualitative validity. First and foremost, the use of triangulation method. It is
a process by which several approaches of different data sources of information, method,
theories or researchers used in the research process (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).
This can mean by using numerous types of approaches or data comprising using both
qualitative and quantitative methods. For instance, data will be composed through various
sources during triangulation of data. If the data from two or more approaches point
toward the identical conclusion, then validity of research is ensured.

Furthermore, member checks also help ensure the validity and reliability of
qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Member checking is method of providing
the final conclusions back to the participants and at the same time feedback is requested
about the accurateness of the data. This is process of the recycling of analysis back to
participants which help to certify researcher and participants are inspecting the
information data consistently. As Lincoln and Guba in 1985 suggested, this can be done
by conducting a follow-up interview with participants and provide them chances to give
feedback to the research.

In addition, thick description is another method of comprehensive description in

research as it helps to express the definite conditions that have been studied as well as
surrounded settings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Thick description is a very comprehensive
description of the research context along with a detailed description of the processes from
the start to the finale. This account enables participants or readers to discuss their shared
experiences. The more data of experiences collected may contribute variety of
perspectives toward a research, which enable the research result better-off and more
realistic.

Instead, use of the negative case analysis, as recommended by Lincoln and Guba
in 1985 and furthered by Silverman in 2001. Seeking negative cases by presentation of
discrepant data that goes counter to the research is essential ensuring comprehension,
completeness and replication in categories. Qualitative researchers can provide data that
opposes the overall perspective of the research. This opposing evidence will help make
the research more realistic and valid.

Lastly, there are two more way of recommended strategies can be used to ensure
the validity and reliability in qualitative research. For instance, these strategies include
peer debriefing and external auditing (Creswell, 2009). Peer debriefing help ensuring the
validity of the research by locating a peer debriefer that analyses and inquires questions
about the research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This help the research reverberate with
people instead of the researcher. Whereas using an external auditor to review the research
is different concept wit peer debriefing, this auditor is not familiar with the researcher
and able to produce an objective valuation of the research. This is about the process of
having an independent examiner that helps to aspect over various aspects of the studies
(Lincoln and Guba, 1985).