Generally, validity (the notion that the measured data reflects what it was purported to measure) is not used in qualitative research for various reasons. First, as qualitative research seeks to describe and understand, it does not measure anything. Second, as Heikkinen, Huttunen, and Syrjälä (in Feldman, 2007) note, “in taking an interpretive perspective, many if not most qualitative researchers reject the realist epistemology upon which the definition of validity appears to be based” (p. 22). Constructs such as credibility and persuasiveness are often used in lieu of validity in such research. However, Hammersley (1992) gives an alternate definition of validity that encompasses both qualitative and quantitative research: “An account is valid or true if it represents accurately those features of the phenomena that it is intended to describe, explain, or theorise” (p. 69).
Heikkinen, Huttunen, and Syrjälä (2007) argue that there are five criteria that need to be met in order to ensure the quality of action research. They are: (1) Principle of historical continuity (how has the action evolved historically?); (2) Principle of reflexivity (what is the researcher’s relationship with his/her object of research like? what are the researcher’s presumptions of knowledge and reality? how does the researcher describe his/her material and methods?); (3) Principle of dialectics (how has the researcher’s insight developed in dialogue with others? how does the report present different voices and interpretations? how authentic and genuine are the protagonists of the narrative?); (4) Principle of workability (how well does the research succeed in creating workable practices? what kind of discussion does the research provoke? how are ethical problems dealt with? does the research make people believe in their own capabilities and possibilities to act and thereby encourage new practices and actions?); and (5) Principle of evocativeness (how well does the research narrative evoke mental images, memories or emotions related to the theme?) (p. 8-9).
Feldman (2007) argues that the results of action research, because of the potential moral and political implications they may carry, should be questioned on the grounds of validity. In response to the article by Heikkinen, Huttunen, and Syrjälä (2007), he suggests that further principles are needed to help action researchers to ensure quality (or validity). These include: (1) action research reports should include clear and detailed descriptions of how and why data were collected; (2) action researchers must provide clear and detailed descriptions of how their narratives were constructed from the data; (3) action researchers should strive to collect data from numerous sources to combine multiple perspectives; and (4) action researchers should be able to provide an explanation of why they believe that the intervention they took led to the results (Feldman, 2007, p. 30).
Heikkinen, Huttunen, and Syrjälä (2007) argue that there are five criteria that need to be met in order to ensure the quality of action research. They are: (1) Principle of historical continuity (how has the action evolved historically?); (2) Principle of reflexivity (what is the researcher’s relationship with his/her object of research like? what are the researcher’s presumptions of knowledge and reality? how does the researcher describe his/her material and methods?); (3) Principle of dialectics (how has the researcher’s insight developed in dialogue with others? how does the report present different voices and interpretations? how authentic and genuine are the protagonists of the narrative?); (4) Principle of workability (how well does the research succeed in creating workable practices? what kind of discussion does the research provoke? how are ethical problems dealt with? does the research make people believe in their own capabilities and possibilities to act and thereby encourage new practices and actions?); and (5) Principle of evocativeness (how well does the research narrative evoke mental images, memories or emotions related to the theme?) (p. 8-9).
Feldman (2007) argues that the results of action research, because of the potential moral and political implications they may carry, should be questioned on the grounds of validity. In response to the article by Heikkinen, Huttunen, and Syrjälä (2007), he suggests that further principles are needed to help action researchers to ensure quality (or validity). These include: (1) action research reports should include clear and detailed descriptions of how and why data were collected; (2) action researchers must provide clear and detailed descriptions of how their narratives were constructed from the data; (3) action researchers should strive to collect data from numerous sources to combine multiple perspectives; and (4) action researchers should be able to provide an explanation of why they believe that the intervention they took led to the results (Feldman, 2007, p. 30).