1

Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at

trustworthiness criteria
Author: Vicent Naano Anney1

Abstract
This empirical library research paper examined Masters Students dissertations
that employed qualitative research methodology and immersed into understanding
of trustworthiness criteria used to ensure the quality of the findings of those
dissertations. The findings have indicated that most of the students in their
dissertation reports employed the quantitative trustworthiness criteria such as
reliability and validity to assess the rigor of qualitative inquiry. In the sampled
Masters of education dissertation no dissertation that employed qualitative
trustworthiness criteria such as credibility, transferability, confirmability and
dependability. This finding has practical implication for postgraduate training at
the school of Education of the University Dar es Salaam, in particular, to
improving the teaching of qualitative research methodology.

Key words: trustworthiness, qualitative, quantitative, credibility, dependability,

confirmability, dependability

Introduction
Any inquiry irrespective of its approach are usually evaluated by peers, readers
and sponsors or grant providers (Krefting, 1991). The evaluators of research
endeavor usually adopt some trustworthiness criteria that are agreed in the
literature in relation to existing research approaches such as qualitative,
quantitative and mixed methods research. Trustworthiness is defined as a
methodological (research design, data gathering, data analysis) accuracy
(soundness) and adequacy of the research inquiry (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002)
Each research approach employs different evaluation criteria to ensure the rigor of
the inquiry. For example, quantitative researchers put into consideration the
reliability, objectivity and validity (i.e. internali and externalii) as means of

Assistant lecturer at the university of Dar Es salaam-Tanzania and Doctoral student at the
University of Waikato, New Zealand.

2
ensuring the trustworthiness of the inquiry. In contrast qualitative researchers
consider dependability, credibility, transferability and confirmability as
trustworthiness criteria for qualitative investigation (Guba, 1981; Schwandt,
Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). The criteria for assessing quantitative research are well
established in the quantitative research literature and have been in use for more
than a century. This strong establishment of quantitative evaluation criteria has
resulted to its erroneous use in assessing rigor of qualitative inquiry although both
qualitative and

quantitative inquiries

have

different

philosophical

and

methodological assumptions. These major distinctive features of qualitative and

quantitative inquiry are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Distinctive features of qualitative and quantitative inquiry

Assumptions
The nature of
reality

Quantitative (positivist)
There is single reality and the
inquiry process can be converged;
reality
is
separable
and
manipulatable into common parts
such as variable.

Qualitative (naturalistic)
There is no single reality, reality consists of
interrelated parts and do not necessarily influence
other parts of the inquiry. In other words reality is
divergent.

The nature of the

inquirer-object
relationship.

There is independent relationship

between the inquirer and objects

There researcher and the participants depends

each other or there is interrelation between the
inquirer and participants and are influencing each
other.

The nature of
"truth statements.

They believe that there is absolute

truth in the inquiry and inquiry
that is not generalizable is
unworthy. Thus the aims of
quantitative inquiry are to
develop nomothetic knowledge.

There is no absolute truth and qualitative

inquiries are not generalizable.
They assume that the purpose of inquiry is to
develop idiographic knowledge.

Source: Guba (1981) and Krefting (1991)

Why the qualitative research trustworthiness criteria?

The purpose of this paper is to present some glimpses that could be used by
research students to put into practice the qualitative research trustworthiness
criteria in their research projects. Qualitative research trustworthiness criteria are
of interest in this paper because there is a lot of debate and also critics from
quantitative researchers on integrity of qualitative findings (Hedrick, 1994;
Ortlipp, 2008; Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002; Smith & Heshusius, 1986). In
addition, qualitative research approach is diverse, consists of variety of
philosophical paradigms such as interpretivism, phenomenology, semiotic,
ethnographic, ethnomethodology, feminism, constructivism, social realism,

3
contemporary hermeneutics and critical theory symbolic interactionism and others
(Avramidis & Smith, 1999; Blaikie, 2010; Bryman, 2008; Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Combined with diverse nature of qualitative research which is also confusing
researchers and given the impact caused by over-establishment of quantitative
research approach the paradigm shift from quantitative to qualitative is also a
barrier for advancement of qualitative research methodology. This challenge is
getting strengths because teaching of the criteria for assessing for assessing
qualitative inquiry has been given little attention in some universities, in
particular, in the developing countries

Likewise, the wisdom of practice suggests that research course instructors are
usually biased toward the extremes of their research specializations of either
qualitative or quantitative approach depending on his/her area of specialization.
The trend shows that if the course instructor is from the educational psychology
background they tend to cover more quantitative research methodology and this
has accumulative impact on graduate future research career (Gelo, Braakmann, &
Benetka, 2008; Ponterotto, 2005). The example of cumulative impact is that most
students in their graduate thesis/dissertation usually opt for quantitative approach
although they might not be interested doing quantitative research or choosing
mixed methods research but leaning more to quantitative approach as a major
approach. As Gelo et al. (2008) asserted that:
Psychology has been a highly quantitative field since its
conception as a science . Psychological research has relied
heavily on experimental and correlational techniques to test theory
using quantitative data. This is because psychology, like other
behavioural disciplines, has been dominated by a positivist. (p.
266)
Surprisingly, those few graduate students who opted for qualitative inquiry
approach some had used quantitative trustworthiness criteria instead of qualitative
criteria in ensuring the integrity of the findings of their studies. To elucidate this
argument the author of this paper randomly selected 245 Masters of education
dissertations submitted to the Faculty/School of Education of the University of
Dar es Salaam between 2007 and 2011 and examined for their respective
trustworthiness criteria used. The findings indicated that 245 dissertations that
employed qualitative methodology adopted quantitative trustworthiness criteria of

4
validity and reliability to ensure the validity of the research instruments and to
address the authenticity their findings. The quantitative criteria cited in some of
these dissertations include validity and reliability with no reference to objectivity
or unpacking of validity into internal validity or external validity. In fact, the
issues which were raised during the validation of instruments in the dissertation
examined was generally aimed to ensure there is no ambiguity that might arise
because of research instruments instead of looking deeply to the candid process of
the inquiry. For the purpose of elucidating this claims researcher extracted few
samples from the students dissertations and are presented in the Table 2.

The few extract referred suggests that, these researchers validated their
instruments in order to minimize ambiguity of their research instruments but the
pertinent issue remain unanswered because none have been reported on strategies
that were used to ensure the findings of the qualitative inquiry are not biased by
personal prejudices. Also, the extracts suggests that these researchers adopted
quantitative trustworthiness criteria such as validity and reliability to legitimate
the findings of their studies which in principle is inapplicable for assessing the
qualitative inquiry.
Table 2. Extract of methodology and instruments validation criteria
Author
Vuta2

Research design
in this study a qualitative research approach
was adopted (Vuta, 2011, p. 43)

Instruments validation
the validity of instruments was done in various ways, the
researcher presented the questionnaires and interviews to the
supervisors for comments (Vuta, 2011, p. 54)

Kitu3

The study was guided mainly by qualitative

research. (Kitu, 2011, p. 32)

the researcher developed draft of research instruments and

asked postgraduate students to review (Kitu, 2011, p. 37)

Dell4

this study employed qualitative research

paradigm (Dell, 2011, p. 32)

Leno5

the study employed qualitative approach

(Leno, 2010, p. 31

kaki6

The study adopted case study qualitative

research was suitable approach (kaki,
2009, p. 25)
specifically the study ethnographic
approach (keki, 2008, p. 38)

interview questions were piloted with a small sample of the

Open university of Tanzania students and fellow masters
students (p. 35)
Prior to the field work . data collection instruments were
reviewed, discussed and refined by the researchers supervisor
(Leno , 2010, p. 47)
the instruments were jointly validated by fellow postgraduate
students Kaki, 2009, p. 39)

Keki7

to improve efficient of collecting

relevant data
classmates, and the supervisor proofread and commented on the
questionnaires to be used in this study (Keki, 2008, p. 43)

Source: Graduate students dissertation

Vuta is pseudonym to cover the identity of the dissertation cited for ethical reasons
Kitu is a pseudonym to cover the identity of the dissertation cited for ethical reasons
4
Dell is a pseudonym to cover the identity of the dissertation cited for ethical reasons
5
Leno is a pseudonym to cover the identity of the dissertation cited for ethical reasons
6
Kaki is a pseudonym to cover the identity of the dissertation cited for ethical reasons
7
Keki is a pseudonym to cover the identity of the dissertation cited for ethical reasons
3

5
The similar trend was also observed by Anfara, Brown, and Mangione (2002) and
reported that early qualitative research proposals addressed the validity criteria by
focusing on four issuesinternal validity, external validity, reliability, and
objectivity-that are traditionally addressed in quantitative studies (p. 29).

It is almost three decades since Guba (1981) and Guba and Lincoln (1982)
publication of qualitative research trustworthiness criteria but problem of using
incorrect criteria in evaluating qualitative inquiry still unresolved. Therefore, why
this controversy for almost 30 years? This paper speculates three major reasons
for this controversy as elaborated below:

First, scholars and students in most universities of the developing countries do

lack access to current academic journals and books related to qualitative research,
therefore, lack access to relevant qualitative materials. This stand is contributed
by the fact that people who are dealing and proposing research books acquisition
belong to the traditional quantitative research orientation which was the dominant
approach for more than a century.

Secondly, many research professors/instructors in developing countries were

trained during the early 1970s and late 1990s, at this time there was a strong
debate between the quantitative scholars critics and the emerging qualitative
scholars on criteria of assessing integrity of qualitative research. Therefore,
traditional quantitative endeavor overweighed the perspective of qualitative
scholars since the later was in juvenile stage at this time of debate and new
qualitative approach received little advocacy in the universities of developing
countries.

Thirdly, graduate students either because of shortage of resources or lack of

reading culture they rarely read original sources. The wisdom of practice indicates
that they have been using previous thesis/dissertations as their primary framework
during their proposals and thesis writings. The paper is not intending to continue
with this debate but it looks on how to apply the already established qualitative
research trustworthiness criteria in the literature (Cutcliffe & McKenna, 1999;
Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Guba, 1981; Guba & Lincoln, 1982; Rolfe, 2006;
Wallendorf & Belk, 1989) for assessing findings of qualitative inquiry. The

6
intention is to add to the current practice and help the graduate students to
understand and apply the correct evaluation criteria in legitimating their research
works

Qualitative research trustworthiness criteria

In his first publication Guba (1981) raised four trustworthiness concerns that any
researcher need to address irrespective of his/her research paradigm: These
question are:
1. How can a researcher establish confidence of his/her findings or how do
we know if the findings presented are genuine? (Truth value concern)
2. How do we know or determine the applicability of the findings of the
inquiry in other settings or with other respondents? (Applicability concern)
3. How can one know if the findings would be repeated consistently with
the similar (same) participants in the same context? (Consistency concern)
4. How do we know if the findings are solely from participants and the
investigation was not influenced by biases, motivations or interests of the
researchers? (Neutrality concerns).
Wallendorf and Belk (1989) building his ideas in Gubas shoulder added the fifth
concern that was not addressed in the original Gubas paper by expanding the
fourth question. According to Wallendorf and Belk (1989) the researcher need to
ask:
5. How do we know if the findings are not false information from the
study participants? (Integrity concern)

Any sincere inquiry need to address these basic concerns ed raised in the
literature. As

Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Schwandt et al. (2007) and

Wallendorf and Belk (1989) argued that each research approach and philosophy of
science develops its own criteria of answering the five questions raised above.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) claimed that positivist researchers have developed the
set of criteria answering the four questions they proposed and the answers fit the
ontological and epistemological assumptions of positivist perspective. The
positivist criteria include internal validity, external validity, reliability, and
objectivity. These positivist criteria are not relevant for assessing rigor of
naturalistic inquiry because naturalistic inquiry has different ontological and

7
epistemological assumptions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Wallendorf & Belk, 1989).
For example, according to

Lincoln and Guba (1985) positivist inquiry

trustworthiness criteria differ in the following ways with naturalistic/postpositivist;

Internal validity- which assumes of a single reality and inquiry findings

are based on the single reality, while naturalists do consider multiple
reality and alternative explanation for the social reality.

External validity- assumes that research be conducted in ways that make

chronological and situational variations irrelevant to the findings (Guba,
1981, p. 80), and generalization is permanent or not affected by time,
while post-positivists assumes that generalization is unbearable because
phenomena changes with time and context.

Reliability- it assumes that research instruments must produce unchanging

if those results were to be considered significant; and any convergence in
results is considered instrumental error because the strand is single reality.
In contrast, positivist assumes that deviation in results is not because of
error of instruments but because of existence of multiple realities and
using human as an instrument there is evolving intuitions and feeling that
affects the results.

Objectivity assumes the knower and known are independent (Wallendorf

& Belk, 1989), and objectivity ensured methodology of the inquiry. In
contrast naturalist assumes that knower and known are not solely
independent.

These clear ontological and epistemological differences suggest that assessing

rigor of qualitative inquiry require different criteria to answer the five questions
proposed by (Guba & Lincoln, 1982; Wallendorf & Belk, 1989). As a result,
Guba and Lincoln (1982) proposed that internal validity should be replaced by
that of credibility, external validity by transferability, reliability by dependability
and objectivity by confirmability (p. 3-4) as shown in Table 3. The next section
of this paper discusses each of the suggested qualitative research trustworthiness
criteria and how to apply these criteria during the research processes.

8
Table 3. Positivist and naturalistic terms appropriate to the aspects of
trustworthiness
Aspects
Truth Value
Applicability

Quantitative term/positivist paradigm

Internal validity
External validity or generalizability

Qualitative term/naturalistic
Credibility
Transferability

Consistency

Reliability

Dependability

Neutrality
-

Objectivity
-

Confirmability
Integrity

Source: Guba (1981, p. 80) and Wallendorf and Belk (1989)

Credibility
Credibility is defined as the confidence that can be placed in the truth of the research
findings (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002; Macnee & McCabe, 2008). Credibility
establishes whether or not the research findings represent plausible information drawn
from the participants original data and is a correct interpretation of the participants
original views (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In qualitative
inquiry researcher establishes rigor of the inquiry by adopting the following
strategies:

i. Prolonged engagement in field or research site

Qualitative research data collection requires researchers self-immersion into the

participants world view (Bitsch, 2005). The immersion of inquirer into the
participants world helps the researcher to understand context of the study and
minimize the distortions of information that might arise due to the presence of the
researcher in school or site. Researcher extended time in the field improve trust
with respondents and also extends understanding of participants local
construction and culture context (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). For example,
assume you are a doctoral student doing intervention study that involved teachers
into professional development, it means that the investigation will involve needs
assessment, followed by professional development training and then evaluation.

This process means that the researcher is required to stay in the field for almost 8
months and evaluation should be done after 6-8 months of the intervention. The
purpose of giving this gestation time is intently to see if there is phenomenon
change as a result of engagement into the professional development. There is

9
some unseen contextual factor that affects data collection processes, for example,
in one of the doctoral study that investigated Tanzanian licensed science teachers
(Anney & Hume, in-press) classroom teaching effectiveness in teaching learnercentred education, the participants in the first phase of the study were uninterested
for their teaching to be observed. The researcher was not aware of the reasons for
teachers resistance. However, after staying in school for a week, the researcher
established that the ministry of education had issued a circular one month before
researchers arrival that licensed teachers who did not registered to Open
University or Teachers Training Colleges will be removed from their teaching
position. After researcher knowing this context the researcher started informal
discussion with individual teachers by explaining the purpose of study, limitations
of the study and ethical issues that guide the study and how the investigation did
not have any relation with government secular. These informal conversations
helped to unease the tension of the Government secular with participants and in
the second phase teachers even allowed their classroom teaching to be pictured.
Krefting (1991) observed that extended time period is important because as
rapport increases, informants may volunteer different and often more sensitive
information than they do at the beginning of a research project ( p. 217-218).

ii. Use of peer debriefing

According to Guba (1981) peer debriefing provide inquirers the opportunity to test
their growing insights and to expose themselves to searching questions (Guba, 1981,
p. 85). Qualitative researcher during the research processes is required to seek support
from other professionals who are willing to provide scholarly guidance such a
members of academic staff, postgraduate dissertation committee, members of the
department, students seminar presentation, and etc. The feedback from peers helps the
researcher to improve the quality of the inquiry findings. This means that qualitative
researcher during report writing is required to present to the peers his/her study
findings and receive comments from the participants. In other words the researcher
involve other perceptions from peers in developing the conclusion of the study
(Bitsch, 2005). The peer debrief investigator looks: background information, data
collection methods and process, data management, transcripts, data analysis
procedure and research findings(Pitney & Parker, 2009).

10

iii. Triangulation
Triangulation involves the use of multiple and different methods, investigators,
sources, and theories to obtain corroborating evidence (Onwuegbuzie & Leech,
2007, p. 239). Triangulation helps the investigator to reduce the systematic bias
and cross-examine the integrity of participants responses. There are four major
triangulation techniques: first, investigator triangulation - use of multiple researchers
in investigating the same problem. Use of multiple investigator brings different
perception into the inquiry and help to strengthen integrity of the findings; second, data
triangulation/informants triangulation - use of different sources of data or research
instruments such as interviews, focus group discussion or participant observation or
utilizing different informants to enhance the quality of the data from different source;
fourth, methodological triangulation - use of different research methods (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002; Phillimore & Goodson, 2004). For
example, in the recent study by Anney, Hume, and Coll (2012) that interviewed different
informants (headmasters, licensed teachers, district education officers) on the
effectiveness of licensed science teachers, the district education officials claimed that
licensed science teachers were supported in schools and district through continuous
professional development but findings from headmasters and licensed teachers indicated
that there was professional development support for the unqualified licensed science
teachers. Therefore, it is recommended that qualitative inquiry research should at least
include one or two techniques of triangulation.

iv. Member checks

Another strategy of improving quality of qualitative data is allowing member
checks. Member checks means the data and interpretations are continuously
tested as they are derived with members of the various audiences and groups from
which data are solicited (Guba, 1981, p. 85). Member checks is a crucial process
that any qualitative researcher should undergo because it is the heart of credibility
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007).

Researcher(s) are

required to include the voices of respondents in the analysed data and

interpretation made from the data. The purpose of doing member checks is to
control the obliteration and biases of inquirer during the analysis and
interpretation of the results. This interpretation means that analysed and
interpreted data is resent to participants for them to evaluate the interpretations

11
made by the inquirer and suggest changes if they are unhappy with the
interpretation made by the researcher which are not reported by participants
themselves. Informants may reject some interpretation made by the researcher,
either might be socially desirability or because of self-presentation of the
researcher (Schwandt et al., 2007). Member checks strategies include: first,
establishing structural corroboration or coherence i.e. testing all data to be sure
there is no internal conflict or inconsistencies; second, establishing referential
adequacy i.e. testing all the analysis and interpretation against documents records
that were used during data collection and final member checks before producing
final document as described above (Guba, 1981).

v. Negative Case Analysis

Negative case analysis is when emerging data from inquiry contradicts with
researchers prior expectation (Bitsch, 2005). If this happen during the
investigation the researcher is required to conduct negative case analysis of the
emerging cases from the study. Reporting the negative cases results improves
credibility of the study because the researcher accounts the contradiction that
emerged from data and this could be used as a base for plausible alternative
explanation for the study. In other words, the negative case analysis helps to
reformulate research questions and improve the rigor of the study. According to
Wallendorf and Belk (1989) negative case analysis helps to control the temper and
natural enthusiasm of the researcher.

vi. Persistent Observation

Persistent observation poses the question whether the researcher or the research
team have done an in-depth study to gain detail (Bitsch, 2005, p. 83). Persistent
observation helps to understand participants prevalent qualities and unusual
characteristics. Extended interaction with context and participants add the
advantage to the inquirer because it help him/her to understand essential
characteristics of the setting (Guba, 1981). Miles and Huberman (1994) reported
that data collected at entry time in the field is weaker than the one collected at the
near end of the study. This interpretation suggests that persistent observation helps

12
to understands participants world view and effects of researchers presence
during the field work in minimized

Transferability
Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be
transferred to other contexts or settings with other respondents it is the interpretive
equivalent of generalizability (Bitsch, 2005; Tobin & Begley, 2004). According to
Bitsch (2005), the researcher facilitates the transferability judgment by a potential
user through thick description and purposeful sampling (p. 85).

i. Provide thick description

According to Li (2004) to enable judgments about how well the research context
fits with other contexts, thick descriptive data, i.e. a rich and extensive set of
details concerning methodology and context, should be included in the research
report (p. 305). Thick description involves the researcher in elucidating all
research processes from data collection, context of the study to production of the
final report. The thick description helps others researchers to replicate the study
using similar conditions in other contexts or settings. As Shenton (2004) argued
that without this insight, [thick description] it is difficult for the reader of the
final account to determine the extent to which the overall findings ring true( p.
69). Therefore, in order to support enhance transferability qualitative inquiry the
research must collect thick" descriptive data which allow comparison of this
context to other possible contexts to which transfer might be contemplated and
develop thick description of the context in order to make judgments about
fittingness with other contexts possible (Guba, 1981, p. 86). It is inquirer role to
provide thick descriptions of the study to ensure transferability of qualitative
inquiry.

ii. Do theoretical/Purposive sampling

Purposive sampling is the technique mainly used in naturalistic inquiry studies,
and is defined as selecting units (e.g., individuals, groups of individuals,
institutions) based on specific purposes associated with answering a research

13
studys questions (Teddlie & Yu, 2007, p. 77). It helps the researcher to focus on
key informants, who are particularly knowledgeable about the issues under
investigation(Schutt, 2006), because purposive sampling allows judgmental
decisions about the selection of participants to be made (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, &
Sorensen, 2010; Bernard, 2000). In addition, it allows the researcher to decide
why she or he wants to use a specific category of informants in the study
(Bernard, 2000), and it provides greater in-depth findings than other probability
samplings methods (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). In other words
informants are selected using purposive sampling techniques in order to maximize
the information to be uncovered from few participants but not for generalizability.

Dependability
According to Bitsch (2005), dependability refers to the stability of findings over
time (p. 86). Dependability involves participants evaluation of the findings,
interpretation and recommendations of the study such that all are supported by the
data as received from informants of the study (Cohen et al., 2011; Tobin &
Begley, 2004). Dependability is established using the following strategies: an
audit trail, code-recode strategy, stepwise replication and peer examination
(Chilisa & Preece, 2005; Krefting, 1991; Schwandt et al., 2007).

i. An audit trail
An audit trail strategy involves an examination of the inquiry process and product
to validate the data where a researcher accounts for all research decisions and
activities to show how data were collected, recorded and analysed (Bowen, 2009;
Li, 2004). In order for an auditor to conduct a thorough audit trial the following
documents should be kept for cross-checking the inquiry process: raw data,
interview and observational notes, documents and records collected from the field,
test scores and others (Guba & Lincoln, 1982). The audit trail also establishes
confirmability of the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1982; Tobin & Begley, 2004).
According to Wallendorf and Belk (1989) judging dependability of ta inquiry
require thorough observation of the informants for an extended period of time in

14
order to learn of any changes and the explanations for changes (Wallendorf &
Belk, 1989).

ii. Stepwise replication

Stepwise replication strategy is qualitative research data evaluation procedure
where two or multiple researchers analyse the same data separately and compared
the results (Chilisa & Preece, 2005). The inconsistences that arise if any from the
analysis by multiple analysis the researchers is required to address them in order
to improve the dependability of the inquiry.

iii. Code-recode strategy

During the code-recode strategy the researcher codes the same data twice by
giving at least one or two weeks gestation period between each coding. The
results from the two coding are compared to see if the results are the same or
different (Chilisa & Preece, 2005). This helps the researcher to understand deeply
the patterns of the data; and also improve the knowing of the participants
narrations.

iv. Triangulation
Triangulation as already discussed in the credibility sectionis the strategy of
collecting data from different sources, employing different research methods,
techniques or even mixing two different paradigms. Triangulation strategy helps
to compensate weaknesses of one method or technique of data collection with
alternative strategy (Cohen et al., 2011).

iv. Peer examination/peer debriefing

Peer examination in principle is not different with member checks strategy
employed to enhance the credibility of the inquiry (Bitsch, 2005; Krefting, 1991).
During peer examination researcher discusses his/her research process and
findings with neutral colleagues such as doctoral students who are either doing
qualitative research or have experience of qualitative research. According to

15
Bitsch (2005) and Krefting (1991) peer examination helps the researcher to be
honest to his/her study and also peers contribute to researchers deeper reflexive
analysis. In addition, colleagues help to identify the categories that are out of the
framework of research questions or help to identify negative cases.

Confirmability
Confirmability refers to the degree to which the results of the inquiry could be
confirmed or corroborated by other researchers (Baxter & Eyles, 1997).
Confirmability is concerned with establishing that data and interpretations of the
findings are not figments of the inquirers imagination, but are clearly derived
from the data (Tobin & Begley, 2004, p. 392). Studies suggest that
confirmability of qualitative inquiry is achieved through an audit trial, reflexive
journal and triangulation (Bowen, 2009; Koch, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
According to Bowen (2009) an audit trail offers visible evidencefrom process
and productthat the researcher did not simply find what he or she set out to
find (p. 307). Confirmability strategies such as audit trial and triangulation have
been discussed in other sections above while reflexive journal or practice is
covered in the next subsection.

i. Practice reflexivity/reflexive journal

Confirmability also can be established using a reflexive journal (Koch, 2006;
Wallendorf & Belk, 1989). Wallendorf and Belk (1989) described a reflexive
journal as reflexive documents kept by the researcher in order to reflect on,
tentatively interpret, and plan data collection (para. 77). The researcher is
required to keep reflexive journal and in this journal content should include all
events during the field, personal reflection in relation to study such as ah
phenomenon that arise during the processes of investigation. The researcher is
required to keep all electronic records (tape recorded) and non-electronic (i.e.,
field notes, documentary materials) during the whole investigation. These records
helped to cross-check the data and writing of the final report of the study.

16

Assessing Integrity
The concept of integrity of inquiry findings was first raised by Wallendorf and
Belk (1989). They argued that the challenge facing qualitative researcher is how
she/he can ensure that the data provided by the informants were not false
fabrication. Since qualitative investigation intently immerse into informants world
view, the informants might not be happy with information asked by the researcher
or they might have disinclination with researcher, hence, they might decide to
provide false information. As a qualitative researcher the best strategy to
overcome misinformation, evasions and lies is to be skeptical with information
that you feel might not be correct. Other strategies include: prolonged engagement
and the construction of rapport and trust, triangulation (across sources, methods,
and researchers), good interviewing technique, safeguarding informant identity,
researcher self-analysis and introspection (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989).

Discussion and conclusion

Although it is more than three decades since Gubas publication on strategies used
to assess authenticity of qualitative inquiry, the enduring impact of quantitative
research approach is not fading. It doesnt mean that quantitative approach is
irrelevant but other approaches need to take position to address issues that are
hard to be addressed by rationalist paradigm. In other words the slow takeoff of
qualitative research trustworthiness criteria is contributed by weak qualitative
methodology training in universities. As shown in the findings of this study
graduate student still use quantitative criteria to assess credibility of qualitative
inquiry. This is because the criticism from quantitative proponent is still strong
and little promotes naturalistic inquiry. Shenton (2004) tasked the qualitative
research methodology instructors essential are to ensure researchers who are
contemplating undertaking qualitative research are not only aware of the
criticisms typically made by its detractors but they are also cognisant of the
provisions which can be made to address matters such as credibility,
transferability, dependability and confirmability (p.73). This findings are in-line
work by Shenton (2004) and Tobin and Begley (2004) reported that debate has yet
finished as opponent of qualitative approach continued to rise disbelieves of
trustworthiness criteria for assessing authenticity of the findings qualitative

17
inquiry. This finding suggests that qualitative research proponents are required to
do more activisms to strengthen the application of qualitative trustworthiness
criteria to restraint the impact quantitative critics. As Tobin and Begley (2004)
asserted that we advocate a move from narrow methods of assuring rigour
gleaned mainly from the positivist tradition to a more pluralistic approach as a
means of legitimizing naturalistic inquiry (p. 394).

Despite the slow takeoff in use of qualitative trustworthiness criteria there is

strong evidence that findings that adopted the criteria discussed in this paper are
conceivable. This paper reported number of strategies to ensure the authenticity of
qualitative inquiry, however, is not necessarily for researcher to adopt all
strategies. This paper recommends to qualitative researchers to adopt at least two
strategies in reference each trustworthiness criteria discussed in this paper and this
will improve the believability of qualitative inquiry. More importantly, the
findings have implication for qualitative research students and qualitative
methodology instructors, in particular, they are to address the critics of from
quantitative researchers and also improve the teaching qualitative methodology
need to be improved.

18

References
Anfara, 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. doi: 10.2307/3594403
Anney, V. N., & Hume, A. C. (in-press). Enhancing untrained teachers
pedagogical content knowledge in science through teachers professional
learning communities. Australian Science Education Association.
Anney, V. N., Hume, A. C., & Coll, R. (2012). The use of unqualified science
teachers in developing countries: A barrier to achieving sustainable
global education. Paper presented at the the Fourth Asian Conference on
Education, Osaka, Japan.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to
research in education (8 ed.). New York, NY: Hult Rinchart & Wiston.
Avramidis, E., & Smith, B. (1999). An introduction to the major research
paradigms and their methodological implications for special needs
research. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 4(3), 27-36. doi:
10.1080/1363275990040306
Baxter, J., & Eyles, J. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography:
Establishing rigour in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of
British
Geographers,
22(4),
505-525.
doi:
10.1111/j.00202754.1997.00505.x
Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and
evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91.
Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (2 ed.).
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Supporting a grounded theory with an audit trail: An
illustration. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4),
305-316. doi: 10.1080/13645570802156196
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3 ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Chilisa, B., & Preece, J. (2005). African perspective in Adult learning :Research
methods for adult educators. Hamburg, German: UNESCO Institute of
Education.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Cutcliffe, J. R., & McKenna, H. P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of
qualitative research findings: The plot thickens. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 30(2), 374-380. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01090.x
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Research. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative
research: Beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral
Science, 42(3), 266-290. doi: 10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing
research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness.
Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

19
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic
inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 7591. doi: 10.1007/bf02766777
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Establishing dependability and
confirmability in naturalistic inquiry through an Audit. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New
York,
NY.
Retrieved
from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED216019.pdf
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hand book of qualitative
reseach (1 ed., pp. 105-117). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hedrick, T. E. (1994). The quantitative-qualitative debate: Possibilities for
integration. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1994(61), 45-52. doi:
10.1002/ev.1667
Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing (2 ed.).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Koch, T. (2006). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(1), 91-100. doi: 10.1111/j.13652648.2006.03681.x
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of
trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43(3),
214.
Li, D. (2004). Trustworthiness of think-aloud protocols in the study of translation
processes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 301-313.
doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00067.x
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Macnee, L. C., & McCabe, S. (2008). Understanding nursing research: Using
research evidence-based practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and Qualitative Research:
An Oxymoron? Quality and Quantity, 41, 233249. doi: 10.1007/s11135006-9000-3
Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative
research process. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695-705.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (2004). Qualitative Research in Tourism:
Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies
Pitney, W. A., & Parker, J. (2009). Qualitative research in physical activity and
the health professions. Auckland, New Zealand: Human Kinetics.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer
on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling
Psychology Copyright, 52(2), 126-136. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of
qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x
Sale, J. M., Lohfeld, L., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitativequalitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and
Quantity, 36(1), 43-53. doi: 10.1023/a:1014301607592

20
Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of
research (5 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations:
But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic
evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation(114), 11-25. doi:
10.1002/ev.223
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative
research projects. Education for Information, 22(2004), 63-75.
Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of
the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers.
Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-12. doi: 10.2307/1174482
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292430
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative
framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388-396. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x
Wallendorf, M., & Belk, R. W. (1989). Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic
consumer research. Association for Consumer Research, 69-84. Retrieved
from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=12177

Internal Validity is the approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect or causal
relationships. Thus, internal validity is only relevant in studies that try to establish a causal
relationship. It's not relevant in most observational or descriptive studies, for instance. But for
studies that assess the effects of social programs or interventions, internal validity is perhaps the
primary consideration (source: William M.K. Trochim (2006
ii

External validity is related to generalizing. That's the major thing you need to keep in mind.
Recall that validity refers to the approximate truth of propositions, inferences, or conclusions. So,
external validity refers to the approximate truth of conclusions the involve generalization. Put in
more pedestrian terms, external validity is the degree to which the conclusions in your study would
hold for other persons in other places and at other times. (Source: William M.K. Trochim (2006).