Academic World, for Example, Certain

¶ … academic world, for example, certain criteria need to be met. Two very important elements in these criteria of acceptability include reliability and validity of the research methods. It is also important to note that reliability and validity issues do not manifest themselves in the same way in different types of research. Quantitive research would for example have different criteria of measurement than qualitative research methods, and would therefore also rely on different measures of reliability and validity.

Because Human Relations is an aspect of the Humanities rather than a more specific science such as Statistics, it may be more complicated to determine the reliability and validity of the research methods used. Reliability Reliability relates to research instruments used for measurement purposes. The consistency of measurement is used as an indicator of an instrument's reliability (Colosi, 1999). The author emphasizes that an important trait of reliability is the fact that it is not itself measured, but rather estimated on the strength of the above-mentioned consistency.

The two ways in which reliability can be estimated include test/retest and internal consistency. The test/retest method means that the same measurement is obtained for successive measurements of the same subjects under the same conditions. The same scores mean that the instrument can be estimated to be reliable. Consistency refers to correlation, and is often measured by means of grouped questions targeted towards the same concept. Such consistency is referred to as internal consistency (Colosi, 1999).

In qualitative research such Human Relations, the reliability of measuring instruments will be difficult to define and estimate. Indeed, measuring instruments will rely mainly on human responses, and consistency will need to be inherent in the analysis instruments in order to ensure reliability. Validity While reliability is important prior to and during the study, validity relates to the outcome of the project. The validity of a study is dependent upon the way in which hypotheses have been proven to be true.

Hypotheses are tested and measured, after which it is shown to be valid or invalid (Colosi, 1999). Establishing validity for a qualititative study is somewhat easier than reliability. Of course however the degree of validity will depend upon the degree of reliability that could be established for the study. Certain behavioral tests can for example be conducted, in which certain outcomes are projected. The degree of adherence to the projections can then be used to determine the degree of validity for the study.

According to Colosi (1997), there are several types of validity in research. The above-mentioned form is known as conclusion validity, which regards the relationship between the research and outcome. The second is internal validity, which concerns the process by which the relationship between the research and its conclusion was achieved. Construct validity relates to the way in which the research is constructed, and its relationship to the causal process of the study. External validity relates to the way in which the study applies to settings outside of itself.

Threats to especially internal validity should be determined and mitigated in order to ensure the ultimate outcome and external validity of the results. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research It has been seen above that human relationships will most likely be studied by qualitative methods. As such, reliability and validity are both more difficult to determine and, because of this, even more important than reliability and validity in quantitative methods. According to Dr.

Virginia Cano, an inherent characteristic of qualitative research is the fact that a question is researched from a variety of angles and methods. Several data collection methods might for example be used to arrive at a specific conclusion for an issue. This is one element that enhances the reliability of a qualitative study. Using several methods to collect and analyze data for example provides the opportunity to corroborate several angles of the same issue.

According to the author, the method of using different angles to shed light on collected data is called triangulation, and provides the researcher with greater reliability of his or her measuring instruments. Furthermore, greater reliability can also be expected from data analysis methods in such research. Specifically, triangulation provides an estimation tool for reliability: the more agreement there is between the different sources, the more reliable the interpretation is likely to be. The way in which data is produced is directly related to reliability.

The researcher may for example decide on a number of different data collection methods such as questionnaires and video interview. These can then be used in concurrence to produce data relating to the issue being investigated. The accuracy of these research methods and techniques is their reliability. In qualitative research, data interpretation can be problematic, because interpretations in the Humanities are always subjective. The qualitative research tradition accepts this as part of the research method. The researcher cannot separate his or her feelings and opinions from the issue being researched.

Reliability can however be increased by a number of methods. Dr. Cano for example notes that research questions such as document interpretation can be submitted to colleagues for their interpretations. The data gathered in this way can then be correlated in order to increase the reliability of the interpretation method. Reliability in qualitative study should always focus upon demonstrating that data have been collected and interpreted in a thorough and valid manner. In qualitative research, validity relates to the relationship of the initial research question to the final conclusion.

This means that the researcher should demonstrate that the question initially posed is answered by the research. In Dr. Cano's words, the appropriateness of the research methods to lead from the question to the conclusion is the central concern of validity. In qualitative data, it is vital to also demonstrate the validity of data interpretation. Because qualitative interpretations are by nature subjective, it is very important to keep track of each interpretation, as well as the path by which the researcher arrived at the various interpretations.

These, although subjective, should be the product of conscious and thorough analysis. The researcher should be able to justify each interpretation that he or she makes. Context formation plays a very important role in this. According to Neill (2006), qualitative research mainly includes the following data collection methods: Interactive interviewing, in which people are asked to describe their experiences; written descriptions, where subjects are asked to write down their experiences; and observation, in which the researcher's observations of behavior are described.

Neill (2006) holds that qualitative study is a tool for describing human experience. The impossibility of remaining objective is a demonstration of this very humanity, and the aim of qualitative research is to use this as an asset rather than a drawback. The human experience is described and delineated by means of thorough analysis and logical conclusions. The fact that the subjective paradigm is such a prominent part of qualitative study is a factor that often brings about suspicion from the larger academic world.

However, according to Neill, the descriptive nature of this kind of study and the dedication to the process of research are redeeming factors for such research, providing it with both reliability and validity. According to Morse et al. (2002), the pervading doubt in the academic world with regard to validity and reliability in qualitative research brought about a set of new criteria for establishing these paradigms in descriptive studies.

This occurred especially during the decade of the 1980s, when the reliability and validity concepts were replaced by the primary quality of "rigor" or "truth value." These concepts recognize the fundamental difference between quantitative study, where subjectivity is not allowed, and qualitative study, where subjectivity is an inherent part of the research process. Qualitative rigor has also been delineated by the term "trustworthiness," where the researcher must demonstrate the validity of his or her research in terms of the context of the study.

Specifically criteria for trustworthiness have been identified as credibility, fittingness, auditability, and conformability, which were later refined to credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability. These were generally to be achieved by the involvement of peer review and contextualization of the study. By involving experts other than the student, the problem of subjectivity in establishing validity and reliability is mitigated. While subjectivity is an inherent part of the qualitative study, it can also work to the detriment of the study by involving the student too closely with his or her subject matter.

This is where the involvement of peers is valuable in terms of providing the necessary perspective. Peer review of qualitative study also makes it more credible for the academic world as a whole. The problem with terms to refine delineate the concepts of reliability and validity in the qualitative research process, according to the authors, is that these terms have become overly abundant, and described essentially the same thing.

The danger was also to become so involved with attempting to meet all the specific criteria for dependability in qualitative research, that it became difficult to determine the rigor and quality of qualitative study in the first place, which means that the very paradigms that were to be clarified by these terms became somewhat clouded. Another problematic paradigm in qualitative study is standards.

The standards to which a study is held are often applied only after the completion of the project, when it is too late to make changes to decisions and problems experienced in the field. Reviewers are disconnected from the research process, and can therefore not truly assess the quality of the.