Validation Proposal for Qualitative Research Scripts (Vali-Quali)

IF 0.4 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Eloisa Torlig, Pedro Carlos Resende Junior, R. Fujihara, Gisela Demo, Lana Montezano
{"title":"Validation Proposal for Qualitative Research Scripts (Vali-Quali)","authors":"Eloisa Torlig, Pedro Carlos Resende Junior, R. Fujihara, Gisela Demo, Lana Montezano","doi":"10.13058/raep.2022.v23n1.2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Through the “garbage in, garbage out” dynamics, it is assumed that a protocol of reliable research tools is a key component for obtaining high-quality data. The lack of transparency, the methodological inconsistency, and the absence of validity criteria in qualitative studies point to a gap that has yet to be overcome. The purpose of the paper is to propose a new guideline for the validation of qualitative research: Validation for Qualitative Research Scripts (Vali-Quali), which can be applied in structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, and scripts for focal groups. The proposal comprises two dimensions, content and semantics, with four attributes: alignment among objectives, adherence to constructs, explicitness, and qualitative expectancy. Between rigor and flexibility, six steps are outlined: design of the initial script, validation by judges, results overview, pretest, validated script and theoretical-empirical script. This paper proposes that the validation process goes beyond the method itself, and stimulates researchers to reflect, exercise their autonomy, and support their choices with the academic rigor that all scientific research must present.","PeriodicalId":53951,"journal":{"name":"Administracao-Ensino e Pesquisa","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administracao-Ensino e Pesquisa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2022.v23n1.2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Through the “garbage in, garbage out” dynamics, it is assumed that a protocol of reliable research tools is a key component for obtaining high-quality data. The lack of transparency, the methodological inconsistency, and the absence of validity criteria in qualitative studies point to a gap that has yet to be overcome. The purpose of the paper is to propose a new guideline for the validation of qualitative research: Validation for Qualitative Research Scripts (Vali-Quali), which can be applied in structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, and scripts for focal groups. The proposal comprises two dimensions, content and semantics, with four attributes: alignment among objectives, adherence to constructs, explicitness, and qualitative expectancy. Between rigor and flexibility, six steps are outlined: design of the initial script, validation by judges, results overview, pretest, validated script and theoretical-empirical script. This paper proposes that the validation process goes beyond the method itself, and stimulates researchers to reflect, exercise their autonomy, and support their choices with the academic rigor that all scientific research must present.
定性研究脚本验证方案(Vali-Quali)
通过“垃圾进,垃圾出”的动态,可以假设可靠的研究工具协议是获得高质量数据的关键组成部分。定性研究缺乏透明度、方法不一致以及缺乏有效性标准,这些都表明了一个有待克服的差距。本文的目的是为定性研究的验证提出一个新的指南:定性研究脚本的验证(Vali Quali),它可以应用于结构化访谈、半结构化访谈和焦点小组的脚本。该提案包括两个维度,内容和语义,具有四个属性:目标之间的一致性、对结构的遵守、明确性和定性预期。在严格性和灵活性之间,概述了六个步骤:初始脚本的设计、法官的验证、结果概述、预测试、验证脚本和理论经验脚本。本文提出,验证过程超越了方法本身,并激励研究人员以所有科学研究必须呈现的学术严谨性来反思、行使他们的自主权,并支持他们的选择。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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