RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

140 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
leading edge of innovations and future trends)
and what could be (the ideal, possible futures)
(Schofield 1990: 209).
Catalytic validity – a major feature in feminist
research which, Usher (1996) suggests, needs
to permeate all research – requires solidarity in
the participants, an ability of the research to
promote emancipation, autonomy and freedom
within a just, egalitarian and democratic society
(Masschelein 1991), to reveal the distortions,
ideological deformations and limitations that reside
in research, communication and social structures
(see also LeCompte and Preissle 1993).
Validity, it is argued (Mishler 1990; Scheurich
1996), is no longer an ahistorical given, but
contestable, suggesting that the definitions of
valid research reside in the academic communities
of the powerful. Lather (1986) calls for
research to be emancipatory and to empower
those who are being researched, suggesting that
catalytic validity, akin to Freire’s (1970) notion
of ‘conscientization’, should empower participants
to understand and transform their oppressed
situation.
Validity, it is proposed (Scheurich 1996), is but
amaskthatinfactpolicesandsetsboundaries
to what is considered to be acceptable research
by powerful research communities; discourses of
validity in reality are discourses of power to define
worthwhile knowledge.
How defensible it is to suggest that researchers
should have such ideological intents is, perhaps,
amootpoint,thoughnottoaddressthisareais
to perpetuate inequality by omission and neglect.
Catalytic validity reasserts the centrality of ethics
in the research process, for it requires researchers to
interrogate their allegiances, responsibilities and
self-interestedness (Burgess 1989).
Consequential validity
Partially related to catalytic validity is consequential
validity, which argues that the ways in which
research data are used (the consequences of the
research) are in keeping with the capability or
intentions of the research, i.e. the consequences
of the research do not exceed the capability of
the research and the action-related consequences
of the research are both legitimate and fulfilled.
Clearly, once the research is in the public domain,
the researcher has little or no control over the
way in which it is used. However, and this is
often a political matter, research should not be
used in ways in which it was not intended to be
used, for example by exceeding the capability of
the research data to make claims, by acting on
the research in ways that the research does not
support (e.g. by using the research for illegitimate
epistemic support), by making illegitimate claims
by using the research in unacceptable ways (e.g.
by selection, distortion) and by not acting on the
research in ways that were agreed, i.e. errors of
omission and commission.
A clear example of consequential validity is
formative assessment. This is concerned with the
extent to which students improve as a result
of feedback given, hence if there is insufficient
feedback for students to improve, or if students are
unable to improve as a result of – a consequence
of – the feedback, then the formative assessment
has little consequential validity.
Criterion-related validity
This form of validity endeavours to relate the
results of one particular instrument to another
external criterion. Within this type of validity
there are two principal forms: predictive validity
and concurrent validity.
Predictive validity is achieved if the data acquired
at the first round of research correlate highly
with data acquired at a future date. For example,
if the results of examinations taken by 16
year olds correlate highly with the examination
results gained by the same students when aged
18, then we might wish to say that the
first examination demonstrated strong predictive
validity.
Avariationonthisthemeisencounteredin
the notion of concurrent validity. Todemonstrate
this form of validity the data gathered from
using one instrument must correlate highly with
data gathered from using another instrument. For
example, suppose it was decided to research a