Validity = Credibility + Trustworthiness
Eisener’s quote reminded me of the importance of metaphor within my research. There were times when words failed or became insufficient; when alliteration, cadence, allusions, metaphor and images stood proxy to the true meanings in what needed to be communicated. These meaning making devices became part of the research variance expected in the P-IP methodology. I considered that notions of validity and reliability were inconsistent with the social-constructivist epistemology and the interpretivist research design applied to this research, since these concepts were framed from a positivistic perspective. The nature of P-IP research is “creative, inventive, emotionally charged, and uneasy. “Good enough researchers find ways to sustain all these aspects” (Luttrell, 2000, p. 8). Trustworthiness, rather than validity, emerged as the focus for determining the quality of this research, as it was “rooted in the epistemological/ethics nexus” of standards such as positionality, discourse communities, voice, critical subjectivity, reciprocity, sacredness, and privilege" (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 209). I will explicitly considered the impact of the big-tent criteria for qualitative research (Tracy, 2010) – worthy topic, rich data, rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethics, and meaningful coherence. In the research results, the claims, warrants and justifications were explored further (Carter & Little, 2007; Hart, 1998).One must be able to use language to reveal what, paradoxically, words can never say. This means that voice must be heard in the text, alliteration allowed, and cadences encouraged. Relevant allusions should be employed, and metaphor that adumbrates by suggestion used. All of these devices and more are as much a part of the tool kit of those conducting qualitative inquiry as analysis of variance is for those working in conventional quantitative research modes (Eisner, 2017).
In order for this research to be perceived as having value and merit, I will framed my research in terms of trustworthiness, credibility, and transparency. From an interpretivist stance, research should include clarifying positionality, ontological authenticity, fairness, and voice; from a critical theory approach this can be seen in researcher reflexivity (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). To increase research authenticity and trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 2005), once the transcripts, reflective artifacts, and stories are graphically rendered, visualized, thematically coded, and analyzed, results were returned to participants for review. I provided these visualizations to the participants as reflective artifacts.
By applying a crystallizing methodology, credibility and trustworthiness developed over time, through the creation of many diffuse reflections and refractions within the data engagements, data analysis, and data representations (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
Further to this, Ellingson (2009) described crystallization as a research process that “turns back upon itself, highlighting its own construction by showing that no one genre offers truth. By making and problematizing claims, crystallized texts gain a level of reflexive validity” (Ellingson, 2009, p. 15). In this way, the research validity was revealed through new understandings as the crystallization methods were applied to research artifacts.Crystals are prisms that reflect externalities and refract within themselves, creating different colors, patterns, arrays, casting off in different directions, what we see depends upon our angle of repose. Not triangulation, crystallization … crystallization provides us with a deepened, complex, thoroughly partial understanding of the topic” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 208).
Trustworthiness and credibility of the research findings became evident in the depth, complexity, and rigour evidenced in the constructions created (Stewart et al., 2017). Authenticity and dependability were revealed, not as an absolute truth, but in the reported reflexivity and interactions between researcher, researched, and research data re-visualization techniques (Stewart et al., 2017). A trusted and reliable representation of the research data emerged from consistently comparing, reporting, sharing thick, rich descriptions of the data, and providing a chain of evidence for field notes, memos, member reviews, debriefs, engagements, observations, frameworks, typologies and recreations (Stewart et al., 2017). By preserving links and threads through the research process, readers will recognize the logical paths and recursive steps I took, in ways that are methodical, transparent, and adhere to best practices for data management (Stewart et al., 2017). As an example, by providing a word cloud visualization from a participant’s video interview transcript as an alternative presentation for the coded data collection, the readability of resulting analysis improved. In this way, researched and reader can recognize how I, as the researcher, dependably managed the alchemic and crystallizing data analysis strategies.