Rethinking Reliability and Validity: Insights from Golafshani’s Framework on Qualitative Research and Christianakis’s Study

In qualitative research, the concepts of reliability and validity must be redefined compared to their use in quantitative research, where these terms originate from a positivist paradigm. Golafshani (2003) asserts that “reliability and validity are rooted in positivist perspective, then they should be redefined for their use in a naturalistic approach” (p. 598). Through the application of triangulation—using multiple methods or data sources to develop a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon—qualitative research aims to increase credibility and ensure that the findings represent participants’ realities accurately. Evaluating Christianakis’s article, Parents as Help Labor, through the lens of Golafshani’s discussion of reliability and validity offers insight into which data segments from the interviews presented are reliable, valid, or trustworthy.

Defining Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research

Golafshani (2003) highlights that in qualitative research, reliability is not about replicating results, as it might be in quantitative studies. Instead, it is about consistency in the process and dependability of the findings. She explains that reliability and validity in qualitative research focus on “truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality” (p. 601). Trustworthiness, a concept that substitutes for both reliability and validity in qualitative paradigms, is achieved when the research presents a truthful representation of the participants’ experiences and the context being studied.

Golafshani (2003) further emphasizes the use of triangulation to enhance reliability and validity in qualitative research. Triangulation involves collecting data through multiple methods or sources and analyzing them to check the consistency of findings. This process reinforces the study’s credibility by ensuring that the data is scrutinized from various angles, thereby addressing potential biases and providing a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation (p. 603).

Evaluating Reliability and Validity in Christianakis’s "Parents as Help Labor"

In Christianakis’s Parents as Help Labor, the data segments derived from interviews with parents provide key insights into their experiences and perspectives. Two segments stand out in terms of their reliability, validity, and trustworthiness when assessed based on Golafshani's (2003) criteria.

Data Segment 1: Direct Quote from Parent on Perception of Volunteer Work

One significant data segment is a parent's quote: “I come to the school to volunteer, but sometimes it feels like I’m just free labor. I don’t always feel appreciated for what I do” (Christianakis, 2011, p. 162). This quote can be considered reliable and valid based on Golafshani’s discussion of qualitative rigor for several reasons. First, the statement is drawn directly from a participant, which lends it credibility as it reflects their lived experience and personal perspective. The quote illustrates the parent’s emotional response to the role they feel they have within the school, suggesting that the school’s power dynamics may devalue parental labor.

Reliability of this Segment

According to Golafshani (2003), reliability in qualitative research refers to the consistency with which data represents the participants' experiences (p. 600). This parent’s consistent emotional response, mirrored by other quotes in the study, suggests reliability. The consistency across similar parent responses reflects what Golafshani terms "internal reliability," where the participant’s experience is repeatedly validated through multiple testimonies or examples (p. 601). The triangulation of similar responses from different parents further increases the reliability of this data.

Validity of this Segment

Golafshani (2003) explains that validity in qualitative research refers to how well the research captures the true essence of the phenomenon under study (p. 602). In this instance, the parent’s feeling of being "free labor" aligns with the study’s broader exploration of how schools utilize parental involvement. The validity of this data is evident because the parent’s words provide direct evidence of how schools may exploit unpaid labor, which is a key argument in Christianakis’s overall analysis. The parent’s perspective is also contextually situated in the broader discourse of how schools manage parent-teacher relationships, reinforcing the data’s validity (Christianakis, 2011, p. 162).

Data Segment 2: Direct Quote from Parent on Lack of Support

Another data segment worth analyzing is: “They ask for help with fundraising and events, but I never feel like they’re helping me understand how to support my child’s learning” (Christianakis, 2011, p. 165). This parent expresses frustration over the imbalance between requests for logistical support versus the school's perceived lack of meaningful engagement in their child's academic needs.

Reliability of this Segment

This segment exhibits reliability because it reflects a common sentiment echoed by other parents in the study, demonstrating consistency in parents' concerns regarding the school’s treatment of their involvement. As Golafshani (2003) notes, reliability in qualitative research refers to the consistency of the findings (p. 600). The fact that multiple parents articulate a similar sense of frustration enhances the reliability of this data. Christianakis strengthens the reliability of this data by drawing on multiple parent testimonies that mirror this experience, adhering to Golafshani’s (2003) principles of triangulation, where different perspectives are used to verify the authenticity of a theme (p. 603).

Validity of this Segment

In terms of validity, this segment highlights the disconnect between what parents expect from their involvement and what they actually experience, which directly relates to the study's central inquiry about the roles parents are asked to play in schools. The parents’ perception of being underutilized aligns with Christianakis’s analysis that schools prioritize logistical labor over genuine collaboration with parents regarding academic support. As Golafshani (2003) argues, validity in qualitative research is achieved when the data accurately reflects the phenomenon under study (p. 602). In this case, the parent’s complaint about the lack of educational guidance from the school supports Christianakis's argument that parental involvement is often more about labor than partnership, lending the data segment substantial validity (Christianakis, 2011, p. 165).

Conclusion

Evaluating the data from Christianakis's article through the lens of Golafshani’s framework for reliability and validity in qualitative research reveals the strength of the presented interview data. The two segments analyzed demonstrate both reliability and validity as they provide consistent, credible, and contextually relevant insights into the lived experiences of parents navigating their roles within the school system. The use of direct quotes, combined with the triangulation of multiple parent perspectives, reinforces the study's trustworthiness, aligning with Golafshani's (2003) assertion that reliability and validity in qualitative research are about capturing the truth of participants' experiences and ensuring that the findings are representative of the broader phenomenon being studied.

References

Christianakis, M. (2011). Parents as "help labor": Inner-city teachers' narratives of parent involvement. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 157-178.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.

Bridging the Gap: Kenneth Howe on the Compatibility of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

 Kenneth R. Howe’s article, "Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility Thesis or Dogmas Die Hard" (1988), challenges the belief that quantitative and qualitative research methods are inherently incompatible. The article questions the long-held belief that quantitative and qualitative research methods are incompatible or fundamentally at odds. Howe advocates for a pragmatic approach to research, where methods are selected based on their effectiveness rather than strict adherence to epistemological paradigms. He argues that both quantitative and qualitative research can be complementary. Howe suggests that both methods share common goals such as generating knowledge and answering important research questions.

One of the key points Howe makes is that both quantitative and qualitative methods share common goals in research, such as generating knowledge and answering important questions. The distinction between the two methods, he argues, is often overemphasized. In practice, the choice of methods depends more on the research question and context than on a rigid dichotomy. Howe suggests that the debate about their incompatibility is unnecessary and even counterproductive. He critiques the "incompatibility thesis" – the belief that the philosophical foundations of these methods; positivism for quantitative, interpretivism for qualitative, make them fundamentally irreconcilable. Instead, Howe promotes the "compatibility thesis," which argues that the two methods can and should be integrated when appropriate.

In discussing mixed methods research, Howe would likely be highly supportive of mixed research methods. He believes that there is no philosophical or practical reason to avoid using both quantitative and qualitative approaches in the same study. According to Howe, "combining quantitative and qualitative methods is a good thing and denies that such a wedding of methods is epistemologically incoherent" (Howe, K., 1988, p. 10). He emphasizes that the goal of research should be to employ the methods that best suit the research questions at hand, rather than adhering to rigid paradigms.

Howe also critiques the notion that paradigms should dictate methods in a one-way fashion, stating that paradigms and methods should inform each other. This two-way relationship allows researchers to evaluate their paradigms based on how well they work in practice. As he writes, "paradigms are evaluated in terms of how well they square with the demands of research practice—and incompatibilism vanishes" (Howe, K., 1988, p. 12).

Howe would support mixed methods research, arguing that combining quantitative and qualitative approaches enhances the research process. His pragmatic perspective emphasizes the flexibility and adaptability of research methods to best address the research objectives. By moving away from the rigid distinction between these methods, researchers can achieve more comprehensive and insightful results.

Reference.

Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017008010