RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

DEFINING VALIDITY 135
involvement and in-depth responses of individuals
secure a sufficient level of validity and reliability.
This claim is contested by Hammersley (1992:
144) and Silverman (1993: 153), who argue that
these are insufficient grounds for validity and
reliability, and that the individuals concerned
have no privileged position on interpretation. (Of
course, neither are actors ‘cultural dopes’ who
need a sociologist or researcher to tell them
what is ‘really’ happening!) Silverman (1993)
argues that, while immediacy and authenticity
make for interesting journalism, ethnography
must have more rigorous notions of validity
and reliability. This involves moving beyond
selecting data simply to fit a preconceived or ideal
conception of the phenomenon or because they
are spectacularly interesting (Fielding and Fielding
1986). Data selected must be representative of the
sample, the whole data set, the field, i.e. they
must address content, construct and concurrent
validity.
Hammersley (1992: 50–1) suggests that validity
in qualitative research replaces certainty with
confidence in our results, and that, as reality is independent
of the claims made for it by researchers,
our accounts will be only representations of that
reality rather than reproductions of it.
Maxwell (1992) argues for five kinds of validity
in qualitative methods that explore his notion of
‘understanding’:
Descriptive validity (the factual accuracy of the
account, that it is not made up, selective or
distorted): in this respect validity subsumes
reliability; it is akin to Blumenfeld-Jones’s
(1995) notion of ‘truth’ in research – what
actually happened (objectively factual).
Interpretive validity (the ability of the research
to catch the meaning, interpretations, terms,
intentions that situations and events, i.e. data,
have for the participants/subjects themselves,
in their terms): it is akin to Blumenfeld-Jones’s
(1995) notion of ‘fidelity’ – what it means to
the researched person or group (subjectively
meaningful); interpretive validity has no
clear counterpart in experimental/positivist
methodologies.
Theoretical validity (the theoretical constructions
that the researcher brings to the research,
including those of the researched): theory here
is regarded as explanation. Theoretical validity
is the extent to which the research explains
phenomena; in this respect is it akin to construct
validity (discussed below); in theoretical
validity the constructs are those of all the
participants.
Generalizability (the view that the theory
generated may be useful in understanding
other similar situations): generalizing here
refers to generalizing within specific groups
or communities, situations or circumstances
validly and, beyond, to specific outsider
communities, situations or circumstances
(external validity); internal validity has greater
significance here than external validity.
Evaluative validity (the application of an evaluative,
judgemental of that which is being
researched, rather than a descriptive, explanatory
or interpretive framework). Clearly this
resonates with critical-theoretical perspectives,
in that the researcher’s own evaluative agenda
might intrude.
Both qualitative and quantitative methods can
address internal and external validity.
Internal validity
Internal validity seeks to demonstrate that the
explanation of a particular event, issue or set
of data which a piece of research provides can
actually be sustained by the data. In some degree
this concerns accuracy, which can be applied to
quantitative and qualitative research. The findings
must describe accurately the phenomena being
researched.
In ethnographic research internal validity can
be addressed in several ways (LeCompte and
Preissle 1993: 338):
using low-inference descriptors
using multiple researchers
using participant researchers
using peer examination of data
Chapter 6