Sashaying Across Party Lines: Evidence of and Arguments for the Use of Validity Evidence in Qualitative Education Research

IF 2.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Heidi Cian
{"title":"Sashaying Across Party Lines: Evidence of and Arguments for the Use of Validity Evidence in Qualitative Education Research","authors":"Heidi Cian","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Though the concept of validity is rooted in positivism, recent scholars have expanded the definition of validity to reflect more progressive paradigms, opening the door to consideration of validity in qualitative education research. Despite this evolution, to date a review of validity evidence in qualitative research has yet to be undertaken even though products offering recommendations for using validity or validity analogs (e.g., trustworthiness) in qualitative work has accelerated. In this chapter, I provide an overview of the history of validity in qualitative research and give an assessment of the use of validity evidence as presented in qualitative articles published in a high-impact journal. I use the results of this assessment to highlight validity practices that are well-represented in the research as well as those that are underrepresented, offering recommendations for how researchers can support the presentation of their work through reflection on these underrepresented elements. Additionally, I forward suggestions as to how qualitative researchers may approach using validity frameworks in planning their studies. Implications for qualitative and quantitative researchers are also discussed, along with suggestions for future work in exploring the use of validity in qualitative education research.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"253 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985079","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Though the concept of validity is rooted in positivism, recent scholars have expanded the definition of validity to reflect more progressive paradigms, opening the door to consideration of validity in qualitative education research. Despite this evolution, to date a review of validity evidence in qualitative research has yet to be undertaken even though products offering recommendations for using validity or validity analogs (e.g., trustworthiness) in qualitative work has accelerated. In this chapter, I provide an overview of the history of validity in qualitative research and give an assessment of the use of validity evidence as presented in qualitative articles published in a high-impact journal. I use the results of this assessment to highlight validity practices that are well-represented in the research as well as those that are underrepresented, offering recommendations for how researchers can support the presentation of their work through reflection on these underrepresented elements. Additionally, I forward suggestions as to how qualitative researchers may approach using validity frameworks in planning their studies. Implications for qualitative and quantitative researchers are also discussed, along with suggestions for future work in exploring the use of validity in qualitative education research.
跨党派的摇摆:在质性教育研究中使用效度证据的证据和争论
虽然效度的概念植根于实证主义,但近年来学者们扩大了效度的定义,以反映更进步的范式,为定性教育研究中对效度的考虑打开了大门。尽管有这样的发展,迄今为止,对定性研究中有效性证据的审查尚未进行,尽管在定性工作中使用有效性或有效性类似物(例如,可信度)的建议产品已经加速。在本章中,我概述了定性研究中有效性的历史,并对发表在高影响力期刊上的定性文章中提出的有效性证据的使用进行了评估。我使用这个评估的结果来强调在研究中被充分代表的有效性实践,以及那些未被充分代表的有效性实践,并为研究人员如何通过反思这些未被充分代表的元素来支持他们的工作展示提供建议。此外,我提出了关于定性研究人员如何使用有效性框架来规划他们的研究的建议。本文还讨论了对定性和定量研究人员的影响,以及对在定性教育研究中探索有效性的未来工作的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of Research in Education
Review of Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually since 1973 (approximately 416 pp./volume year), provides an overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays. Articles are usually solicited for specific RRE issues. There may also be calls for papers. RRE promotes discussion and controversy about research problems in addition to pulling together and summarizing the work in a field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信