Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies

Abstract

The effect of the individual analyst on research findings can create a credibility problem for qualitative approaches from the perspective of evaluative criteria utilized in quantitative psychology. This paper explicates the ways in which objectivity and reliability are understood in qualitative analysis conducted from within three distinct epistemological frameworks: realism, contextual constructionism, and radical constructionism. It is argued that quality criteria utilized in quantitative psychology are appropriate to the evaluation of qualitative analysis only to the extent that it is conducted within a naive or scientific realist framework. The discussion is illustrated with reference to the comparison of two independent grounded theory analyses of identical material. An implication of this illustration is to identify the potential to develop a radical constructionist strand of grounded theory.

The role of formal controls in facilitating information system diffusion

“…Our case study followed the principles of "soft positivism" or "scientific realism" [22,26], which enabled us to conduct the data analysis according to certain anticipations based on existing theory, but also allowed unexpected findings and explanations to emerge from the data, as in the manner of more interpretivist approaches. To this end, we developed a conceptual model from the literature, which was refined at the case site.…”

Capturing the essence of grounded theory: the importance of understanding commonalities and variants

“…Proponents of all variants agree that the main thrust of GT is to develop higher level understanding that is grounded in the data collected rather than predetermined by existing theories or frameworks (Lingard, Albert & Levinson, 2008). Glaserian GT is underpinned by the realist ontological assumption that there is a single truth to be discovered from data (Madill, Jordan, & Shirley, 2000;Rennie, 1996;Thomas & James, 2006), and the positivist epistemological assumption that knowledge of phenomena emerges directly from such data (Glaser, 1992). Straussian GT lays epistemological claim to being ''interpretive work and… interpretations must include the perspectives and voice of the people who we study'' (Strauss & Corbin, 1994: p.279), but it is also ontologically realist due to its concern with recognising bias and maintaining objectivity (Annells, 1996(Annells, , 1997Charmaz, 2000).…”

Design Science Research and the Grounded Theory Method: Characteristics, Differences, and Complementary Uses

“…For example, Madill et al (2000) state that the method can be used with an interpretive, naive realist, or critical realist lens. Furthermore, researchers have also used the research method within a positivist lens (e.g., Kirsch 2004).…”