質化研究的validity

在研究方法的課堂上,在reviewer的意見中,在論文答辯的時候,甚至在學生的comprehensive exam,如果遇到質化研究,這樣的問題你可能會常聽到或看到:如何確保這篇質化研究的validity?

這問題說真的不好回大,可大可小。往大裡說,可以牽扯到知識論,先了解你對「真相」(truth) 的定義,再來看如何確保質化研究的validity。往小裡說,可能就具體提供幾個實用的方法來回答這種問題。

這篇文章就不從知識論來談了,就直接切入重點吧!

第一種解決辦法,就是說明名詞差異。在質化研究中,並不使用validity,而是使用其它詞彙。

比如說Guba (1981) 所提到的詞彙對應:

Internal validity <-> Credibility

External validity <-> Transferability

Reliability <-> Dependability

Objectivity <-> Confirmability

詳見這裡:http://www.fctl.ucf.edu/ResearchAndScholarship/SoTL/creatingSoTLProjects/implementingmanaging/qualitativeresearchvalidity.php

Maxwell (1981) 則有不同的詞彙:

Descriptive validity

Interpretive validity (這可以參見Altheide & Johnson, 1994, 或這裡:http://www.qualres.org/HomeAlth-3681.html)

Theoretical validity

Generalizability

Evaluative validity

詳見這裡:http://www.fctl.ucf.edu/ResearchAndScholarship/SoTL/creatingSoTLProjects/implementingmanaging/qualitativeresearchvalidity.php

至於怎麼解決呢?直接上Guba (1981) 裡面的圖:

 

Trustworthiness

另外,Whittemore et al. (2001) 這篇也有很詳細的說明,這就讓大家自己看了。

參考書籍

Altheide, DL. & Johnson, JM. (1994). “Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research.” In NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 485-499). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). White Plans, NY: Longman. 

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 29(2), 75-91

Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522–537. http://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119299
Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 0 comments