As you recall from
earlier weeks, various philosophical orientations hold unique epistemological
and ontological assumptions. These assumptions return to the forefront of
attention when considering how to evaluate the rigor or quality of various qualitative
research designs.
Typically,
when speaking of validity, qualitative researchers are referring to research
that is credible and trustworthy, i.e., the extent to which one can have
confidence in the study’s findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Generalizability,
a marker of reliability, is typically not a main purpose of qualitative
research because the researcher rarely selects a random sample with a goal to
generalize to a population or to other settings and groups. Rather, a
qualitative researcher’s goal is often to understand a unique event or a
purposively selected group of individuals. Therefore, when speaking of
reliability, qualitative researchers are typically referring to research that
is consistent or dependable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), i.e., the extent to
which the findings of the study are consistent with the data that was
collected.
References
Lincoln, Y. S.,
& Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
For
this Discussion, you will explain criteria for evaluating the quality of
qualitative research and consider the connection of such criteria to
philosophical orientations. You will also consider the ethical implications of
designing qualitative research.
With
these thoughts in mind:
By Day 4
Post an explanation of two criteria for
evaluating the quality of qualitative research designs. Next, explain how these
criteria are tied to epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying
philosophical orientations and the standards of your discipline. Then, identify
a potential ethical issue in qualitative research and explain how it might
influence design decisions. Finally, explain what it means for a research topic
to be amenable to scientific study using a qualitative
approach.