The use of reliability and validity are common in quantitative research and now it is reconsidered in the qualitative research paradigm. Since reliability and validity are rooted in positivist perspective then they should be redefined for their use in a naturalistic approach. Like reliability and validity as used in quantitative research are providing springboard to examine what these two terms mean in the qualitative research paradigm, triangulation as used in quantitative research to test the reliability and validity can also illuminate some ways to test or maximize the validity and reliability of a qualitative study. Therefore, reliability, validity and triangulation, if they are relevant research concepts, particularly from a qualitative point of view, have to be redefined in order to reflect the multiple ways of establishing truth. Key words: Reliability, Validity, Triangulation, Construct, Qualitative, and Quantitative This article discusses the use of reliability and validity in the qualitative research paradigm. First, the meanings of quantitative and qualitative research are discussed. Secondly, reliability and validity as used in quantitative research are discussed as a way of providing a springboard to examining what these two terms mean and how they can be tested in the qualitative research paradigm. This paper concludes by drawing upon the use of triangulation in the two paradigms (quantitative and qualitative) to show how the changes have influenced our understanding of reliability, validity and triangulation in qualitative studies.

/pdf/understanding-reliability-and-validity-in-qualitative-y35o3giehf.pdf

Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research

This article presents a model for quality in qualitative research that is uniquely expansive, yet flexible, in that it makes distinc- tions among qualitative research's means (methods and practices) and its ends. The article first provides a contextualization and rationale for the conceptualization. Then the author presents and explores eight key markers of quality in qualitative research including (a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence. This eight-point conceptualization offers a useful pedagogical model and provides a common language of qualitative best practices that can be recognized as integral by a variety of audiences. While making a case for these markers of quality, the article leaves space for dialogue, imagination, growth, and improvisation.

Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research

Mixed methods research is an approach that combines quantitative and qualitative research methods in the same research inquiry. Such work can help develop rich insights into various phenomena of interest that cannot be fully understood using only a quantitative or a qualitative method. Notwithstanding the benefits and repeated calls for such work, there is a dearth of mixed methods research in information systems. Building on the literature on recent methodological advances in mixed methods research, we develop a set of guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in IS. We particularly elaborate on three important aspects of conducting mixed methods research: (1) appropriateness of a mixed methods approach; (2) development of meta-inferences (i.e., substantive theory) from mixed methods research; and (3) assessment of the quality of meta-inferences (i.e., validation of mixed methods research). The applicability of these guidelines is illustrated using two published IS papers that used mixed methods.

/pdf/bridging-the-qualitative-quantitative-divide-guidelines-for-2pa3j69on0.pdf

Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems

There has been much discussion about quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in different disciplines. In the behavioural and social sciences, these two paradigms are compared to reveal their relative strengths and weaknesses. But the debate about both traditions has commonly taken place in academic books. It is hard to find an article that deals with the generic issues related to the quantitative and qualitative divide by drawing on distinguished research literature. Interested in addressing this need, this article aims to explain the essential characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research approaches with an emphasis on their underlying epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. It elucidates the research design issues and concepts in relation to both research paradigms, from planning research to collecting and analyzing data, and reporting findings. The criteria that are used to evaluate research strategies and findings are also discussed.

Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences

Evaluating the intercoder reliability (ICR) of a coding frame is frequently recommended as good practice in qualitative analysis. ICR is a somewhat controversial topic in the qualitative research c...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1609406919899220

Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines

This article consists of two parts, starting with a discussion about generally accepted quality concepts in research, criticising them from the qualitative perspective. The article concludes by suggesting alternative concepts to be used for securing quality when pursuing qualitative research.

Caroline Stenbacka

Papers

Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own