Construct validity plays an important role in the design, implementation, analysis, and ultimate usefulness of qualitative research methods. The construct of validity itself in qualitative research is discussed in this article and cites qualitative researchers across disciplines who explore “unique dimensions” and other considerations relating to validity in qualitative research.
The Total Quality Framework (TQF) relies heavily on construct validity in its quality approach to each phase of the qualitative research process. At each phase, the researcher must ask “Am I gaining real knowledge about the core concepts that are the focus of this research?” For example,
An important step when developing a research design is to identify the key constructs associated with the research objectives to investigate, and the particular attributes of each construct that the researcher wants to explore. So, for example, a researcher conducting a study on dietary behavior may have interest in “health consciousness,” including shopping behavior related to organic and fresh foods.
In the in-depth interview and focus group discussion methods, careful attention needs to be paid to guide development and the inclusion of questions relevant to the constructs of interest. When developing the guide, the researcher needs to ask “Is this [topic, question, technique] relevant to the construct we are investigating?”, and “Does this [topic, question, technique] provide us with knowledge about the aspect of the construct that we intended to explore in the interviews/discussions?”
In ethnography, the observation guide and observation grid are important tools. “The grid is similar to the guide in that it helps to remind the observer of the events and issues of most import; however, the observation grid is a spreadsheet or log of sorts that enables the observer to actually record and reflect on observable events in relationship to the research constructs of interest” (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015, p. 206).
The quality of qualitative data analysis hinges on the researcher’s ability to effectively identify, analyze, and develop valid interpretations of the data around the important constructs associated with the research objectives. To assist the researcher, a TQF approach to analysis recommends a codebook format and coding form (which is basically a reflexive journal for the coder[s] to record thoughts and justifications for their coding decisions) that highlights constructs of interest. For example,
Construct validity also plays an important role in the transparency of the final research document. In the study report, the researcher can (and should) elaborate on the design, data gathering, and analysis decisions that were made pertaining to the key constructs, as well as the main themes that were derived from the data — i.e., the knowledge that was gained from the research — concerning these constructs.
The September 2021 issue of Monitor on Psychology from the American Psychological Association includes an article “Leading the Charge to Address Research Misconduct” by Stephanie Pappas. The article discusses the various circumstances or “pressures” that may lead researchers towards weak research practices that result in anything from “honest” mistakes or errors (e.g., due to insufficient training or oversight) to deliberate “outright misconduct” (e.g., falsifying data, dropping outliers from the analysis and reporting). The article goes on to talk about what psychologists are doing to tackle the problem.
One of those psychologists is James DuBois, DSc, PhD at Washington University School of Medicine. Dr. DuBois and his colleague Alison Antes PhD direct the P.I. (professionalism and integrity in research) Program at Washington University. This program offers one-on-one coaching to researchers who are challenged by the demands of balancing scientific and compliance requirements, as well as researchers who have (or have staff who have) been investigated for noncompliance or misconduct. The P.I. Program also conducts an On the Road Workshop which is an onsite session for researchers “doing empirical research in funded research environments” covering such areas as decision-making strategies, effective communication, and professional growth goals.
Another approach to the problem of misconduct and the goal of research integrity is transparency by way of sharing data (and other elements of design), allowing other researchers the opportunity to examine research practices and substantiate the reported results. Dr. DuBois and his co-authors discuss this and other advantages to sharing qualitative data in their 2018 article “Is It Time to Share Qualitative Research Data?” The authors assert that allowing other researchers to assess supporting evidence and “comprehensiveness by examining our data may improve the quality of research by enabling correction and increasing attention to detail” (p. 384).
In response to DuBois et al., Roller and Lavrakas (2018) published a commentary expressing Read Full Text
Among the many keynote speakers, presentations, and posters at the American Psychological Association 2020 Virtual Convention (which is available online until August 1, 2021), the program includes a symposium on “Questioning Qualitative Methods – Rethinking Accepted Practices.” This session includes three presentations: “Do We Have Consensus About Consensus? Reconceptualizing Consensus as Epistemic Privilege” (by Heidi Levitt), “Is Member-Checking the Gold Standard of Quality Within Qualitative Research?” (by Sue Motulsky), and “Is Replication Important for Qualitative Researchers?” (by Rivka Tuval-Mashiach).
Ruthellen Josselson serves as discussant for this session. In her remarks, Dr. Josselson uses the symposium theme of “rethinking accepted practices” to discuss the second-tier status or “marginalization” of qualitative research, particularly in the field of psychology, and suggests a way to think differently about working in qualitative research. Josselson begins by acknowledging the core realities of qualitative research. Drawing on the panelists’ presentations – and not unlike an earlier article in Research Design Review on the “10 Distinctive Qualities of Qualitative Research” – she highlights unique aspects of qualitative research such as the multiple, contextual nature of “truth,” the absence of isolated variables to measure, and the impossibility of exact replication. These realities, however, do not or should not condemn qualitative research to the periphery of the research methods arena.
To drive qualitative research away from the periphery and its marginalized status, Josselson offers an approach centered on “collectivism” or the idea of a concerted effort among qualitative researchers to investigate phenomena together with the objective of making meaningful contributions toward addressing the research issue. In this spirit, qualitative researchers set out Read Full Text