Introduction
There are critical differences between the quantitative and qualitative criteria. Some people regard qualitative research as less valid and rigorous than quantitative research due to the differences in the methods scholars use. There is a certain amount of subjectivity in qualitative research compared to a quantitative study, but the choice of data corresponds to the basic principles of scientific investigation. Therefore, scholars need to define the criteria for scientific research using qualitative methods to understand how legitimate information is gathered and structured.
Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria
It is possible to emphasize the critical criteria that describe the distinctive essence of qualitative research methods. Lincoln and Guba (1985) write that qualitative research is trustworthy when it corresponds to credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability criteria. The notion of credibility supposes that the researcher is confident in the findings they use in the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Transferability signifies that the study’s results can be applied in other contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The concept of dependability means that other scholars can repeat the findings from the research, and the results will remain unchangeable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The idea of confirmability describes the degree to which the interests and motivations influence the outcomes and biases the researchers have (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The last criterion is the authenticity of the research that focuses on the transformative potential of the topic and the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These criteria are inseparable from the objective truth in the scholarly research, and their application to the results shows the trustworthiness of the investigation.
There are particular techniques that the researchers use to test the trustworthiness and value of the qualitative study. Among them are member-checking, negative case analysis, prolonged engagement, peer debriefing, persistent observation, referential adequacy, and triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The techniques allow testing the criteria mentioned above and determining whether the qualitative research is rigorous. The vital detail is that pushing the validity and the trustworthiness of the qualitative study also requires the assistance of other scholars, which makes it similar to quantitative research. In both cases, the author of the research can disregard subjective controversies, which makes the study not rigorous.
Self-reflexivity is the vital component of qualitative research that allows the scholar to eliminate potential ideological and ethical controversies in the subsequent discussion. Treharne and Riggs write about this criterion of the qualitative study, claiming that individual reflexivity includes the inward-looking of the researcher. It helps the scholar to conduct a conscious, rational analysis of the research on all its levels. The opposite notion of self-reflectivity is the end-user involvement that refers to the respondents’ attitudes and behavior. The information concerning the research subjects’ community members should be evaluated during the planning of the study, actualization, and dissemination (Treharne & Riggs, 2015).
At the same time, it is possible to talk about the dual processes that occur during the scholarly investigation. The combination of end-user involvement and personal reflexivity allows the researcher to pay adequate attention to the data acquisition process and its integration into the study. In general, self-reflexivity enables the author to understand whether their social characteristics, including privileges, gender, age, or religious affiliation, influence how the data is presented in the study. Conducting objective and valid research without being neutral in evaluations and the preliminary search for information is impossible.
The importance of self-reflexivity and awareness of personal controversies is challenging to estimate in social sciences. For example, the researcher can search only for the harmful data that supports their hypothesis about racial crimes in the country because they share this opinion about minorities. This data search criterion is not neutral and objective, making it controversial and not applicable to scientific investigation (Treharne & Riggs, 2015). The self-reflexivity technique allows the scholar to acknowledge that the motivation for the data selection can be the reflection of individual prejudices. As a result, despite the formal objective structure of the study, it will not be scientific and valid.
Even though most scholars agree with the rigorous research criteria articulated by Lincoln and Guba, they add essential details to the discussion. For instance, Treharne and Riggs (2015) expand the dispute about the requirements of rigorous qualitative research. Scholars claim that rigorous qualitative research is characterized by transparent outcomes, personal reflexivity, end-user involvement, and triangulation that supposes the use of multiple sources and contexts (Treharne & Riggs, 2015).
The cross-sectional character of the qualitative data is vital to this type of research. It is widely used in social sciences that suppose a high degree of intersections. As a result, the conclusions from the study should apply to the topic that relates to a different context (Treharne & Riggs, 2015). These aspects are vital in social studies, where the same information relates to various issues. For example, the investigation into the problems Latin American females face in family life can provide data on physical abuse, gender studies, and the discussion of the subject of immigrants.
Conclusion
It is possible to conclude that qualitative research is rigorous when its findings are transparent, self-reflexive, transferable, dependable, authentic, confirmable, and credible. These characteristics are described in the works by Treharne and Riggs and Lincoln and Guba. These sources discuss the same information about the techniques scholars should use to conduct qualitative research and the criteria characteristic of a valid study. Therefore, these parallels allow the conclusion that these criteria are rationally justified and add objectivity to the scholarly research.
Reference List
Lather, P. (1986) ‘Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place’, Interchange 17(4), pp. 63-84.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Treharne, G. J., Riggs, D. W. (2015) ‘Ensuring quality in qualitative research’, Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology, pp.57-73.