In case of unexpected results, it will be significant to verify the study’s validity and reliability, thus making sure that the data was properly collected, analyzed, and documented. In what ways can the data you have, or that you can potentially collect, challenge your ideas about your topic? To achieve this, it is suggested to maximize trustworthiness and employ a paradigm of realism.
How will you successfully defend against validity threats to your conclusions?Įffective defense against validity threats should be based on confirming credibility of the qualitative study. How will you successfully defend against the plausible alternative interpretations?ĭefending measures can involve the use of the argumentation theory, clear definitions of all the alternatives, and paying attention to causal relationships. Dependability concerns can be related to a lack of attention to the changing context Potential threats to validity may include credibility issues, if the study participants would consider the conclusions non-realistic. 118-126.What are the plausible alternative interpretations and validity threats to your conclusions you might have about your topic?Īmong the plausible alternatives to the interoperation of conclusions, there can be the failure to correctly understand the feelings of players and the assumption that the greater connectedness with other players leads to more psychological disorders. (2000), "Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. In conclusion, this paper’s set of six criteria will facilitate the further adoption of the realism paradigm and its evaluation in marketing research about, for instance, networks and relationship marketing. An example of the use of the criteria is given. Comparisons are made with criteria in other paradigms, particularly positivism and constructivism.
The final three criteria concern methodology: methodological trustworthiness, analytic generalisation and construct validity. The third criterion concerns epistemology: multiple perceptions of participants and of peer researchers. The first two criteria concern ontology, that is, ontological appropriateness and contingent validity. Six comprehensive and explicit criteria for judging realism research are developed, drawing on the three elements of a scientific paradigm of ontology, epistemology and methodology. Aims to address a gap in the literature about quality criteria for validity and reliability in qualitative research within the realism scientific paradigm.
0 kommentar(er)
