11.vol 0005www.iiste.org call for paper_no 1-2_ pp. 25-64

Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting
Vol. 5, No. 1/2 December 2011
Pp 25-64

Quality in Qualitative Studies:
The Case of Validity, Reliability and
Generalizability*)
Azham Md. Ali1**)
Hamidah Yusof
Faculty of Management and Economics
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
Malaysia

Abstract

The concern over the subject of quality judgement of qualitative research has led to the emer-
gence of several varied positions. Whichever labels used in describing the positions, each has a
distinctive character. To attempt to an understanding of the meaning of the quality criteria of
validity, reliability and generalizability in qualitative research, this paper provides a review of
relevant literature of recent years. To check on the extent of their reporting in research papers, a
total of 15 accounting research recently published in top-ranked accounting journals have been
selected. Except for one paper, the rest has failed to provide detailed discussion on the validity,
reliability and generalizability of their research. But this would not necessarily mean that the
concerned researchers have disregarded the aspects of validity, reliability and generalizability
during the conduct of their research. Perhaps the only way to find out the truth is by asking the
researchers themselves the relevant questions.

Keywords: qualitative research, quality, validity, reliability, generalizability, accounting

1
Azham Md. Ali is currently a Professor of Accounting and Finance at the Faculty of Management and Economics at
the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim Perak. Prior to his current appointment, he was attached to the
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok Kedah for which he had served for close to 25 years. His areas of interest are audit-
ing, international accounting, accounting history and qualitative research. To date, he has published in numerous local
and international journals and presented papers in various conferences and seminars.
*)
A slightly different version of the paper with the same title was presented as Invited Paper II for The Second Na-
tional Seminar on Qualitative Research, 4-5 December 2006 at Kompleks Dewan Kuliah Sains, Fakulti Sains, Uni-
versiti Malaya. The seminar’s organizers are the Qualitative Research Association of Malaysia (QRAM) and Institut
Pengurusan Penyelidikan dan Perundingan, Universiti Malaya.
**)
The following people from the Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) have been quite suppor-
tive in different ways over the successful completion of the original version of the paper (which was presented as In-
vited Paper II for The Second National Seminar on Qualitative Research, 4-5 December 2006 organized by the Qualita-
tive Research Association of Malaysia and the Institute of Research Management and Monitoring, University of Ma-
laya): Noor Yusni Md. Yusuf, Azharudin Ali, Dr. Nor Aziah Abd. Manaf and Dr. Mohamad Hisyam Selamat. Thus, the
main author is very much appreciative of their support. Since the opportunity to work on the paper has come from Dr.
Siti Nabiha Abdul Khalid from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) and Dr. Aini Hassan from Universiti Malaya (UM),
the main author is also very much grateful to them. Finally, a lot of gratitude is for the author’s former PhD supervisor
Prof. Stuart Turley from the University of Manchester, UK who in 1995 had been quite understanding enough in allow-
ing him to change the research approach (following the change in the research question raised) from quantitative to
qualitative and which has led him to come to know the very interesting world of qualitative inquiry.

26 A. Md. Ali, H. Yusof / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1/2 (2011) 25-64

At present, there is an observable “validity” and “reliability” or
trend that qualitative research other concepts like “consistency”
attracts students as well as practi- or “adequacy of meaning” or
tioners who are not at ease with even others.
demanding quantitative proce-
dures and who expect that in Eberle (2005, p. 4)
qualitative research they can sub-
stitute methodological sophistica- 1. Introduction
tion with common-sense. The
more fashionable qualitative re- Quality concerns play a central role
search has become in different throughout all steps of a research proc-
fields, like social work, business ess from the inception of a research
administration, marketing and question and data collection, to the
consulting, the more we face a analysis and presentation of research
quality problem. Any investiga- findings. Following this line of thought,
tion which does not make use of there is no question that quality is an
statistical procedures is called integral and explicit part in qualitative
“qualitative” nowadays, as if this inquiry. However, the concern over the
were a quality label in itself. As subject of quality judgement of qualita-
many have already called for: we tive research has led to the emergence of
need to define criteria by which several varied positions. See Table 1
we can distinguish “good” from below.
“bad” qualitative research, be it

Table 1
Quality Judgement Positions
Literature Quality Position
Denzin (1995) positivism, postpositivism, postmodern and postfoundational
Onwuegbuzie (2002) positivists, postpositivists, poststructuralists and postmodernists
Lazaraton (2003) foundationlism (positivism/rationalism),
quasi-foundationalism (postpositivism, constructivism) and
nonfoundationalism (postmodernism)

In sentence form, these quality positions modifying quantitative research
may be understood as the followings: criteria to produce criteria fit for
qualitative research context.
y There is only one way to judge the y The way to judge the quality of
quality of qualitative studies qualitative studies is by develop-
which is the same for any type of ing a unique set of criteria.
scientific inquiry: the criteria of
reliability, internal and external Other than these four quality positions, a
validity and objectivity. qualitative study may also be judged on
y There is no way to judge the qual- its quality through
ity of qualitative studies. y the conduct of a deductive quanti-
y The way to judge the quality of tative study to test out the emerg-
qualitative studies is through ing theory.

A. Md. Ali, H. Yusof / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1/2 (2011) 25-64 27

This paper is an attempt to understand plausibility, validity, validation, and
the meaning of the quality criteria of credibility. Various authors have
validity, reliability and generalizability constructed diverse typologies of
in qualitative research. Following that validity (e.g., Maxwell’s five types,
attempt, the paper focuses on the report- 1992; Lather’s four frames, 1993;
ing of these and other quality criteria in and Schwandt’s four positions,
published studies. In order to come to 1997). It is little wonder that Don-
some understanding (or perhaps utter moyer (1996), who wrote and edito-
confusion?) of what these three terms rial on validity in the Educational
stand for, there is the review of selected Researcher, commented on the di-
recent literature. The review is done verse perspectives of validity… Nov-
with no intention whatsoever to provide ice researchers, in particular, can
anything new or different in regard to become increasingly perplexed in
the meaning of validity, reliability and attempting to understand the notion
generalizability of qualitative studies as of validity in qualitative inquiry.
compared to those offered by various
parties to date. To name just four of So, while the paper unlike so many oth-
these parties, these would be Davies and ers such as Whittemore et al. (2001)
Dodd (2002), Golafshani (2003), Kvale does not provide new or different mean-
(1995), and Whittermore, Chase and ings to what is currently understood to
Mandle (2001). be validity, reliability and generalizabil-
ity in qualitative inquiry, it is on the
Hence, unlike Davies and Dodd (2002), other hand pretty much like Morse, Bar-
Golafshani (2003) and Kvale (1995), the rett, Mayan, Olson and Spiers (2002)
paper does not take a critical focus on which propounds the implementation of
the inadequacy of applying a quantita- the so called verification strategies dur-
tive concept of rigour to evaluate quali- ing the conduct of a qualitative inquiry
tative research. In short, it does not at- to ensure the attainment of rigor or qual-
tempt to redefine the concepts of reli- ity in such work. That said, the paper
ability, validity and triangulation. Also, does not make the same kind of stance
the paper does not see the need to add to as that of Morse et al. (2002): a return to
or subtract from the present plethora of terminology for ensuring rigor in quali-
meanings of validity, reliability and gen- tative inquiry that is used by mainstream
eralizability of qualitative studies. This science, i.e., validity and reliability. In
is done so that the paper is never in dan- the final analysis, the ultimate aim of the
ger of introducing yet more confusion paper is as mentioned succinctly by
into the already turbulent waters of the Seale (1999, p. 465):
meaning of quality in qualitative studies!
Related to this, note the following com- A lot of effort has been expended by
ing from Creswell and Miller (2000, p. methodologists over the years, try-
124): ing to give some guidance to quali-
tative researchers in improving or
… readers are treated to a confusing judging the quality of qualitative
array of terms for validity, including research. You could say that all
authenticity, goodness, verisimili- methodological writing is ultimately
tude, adequacy, trustworthiness, directed at such a goal, because the


idea of writing about how one can Later, and in a more recent time, Irvine
do research is presumably aimed at and Gaffikin (2006) had raised this mat-
giving other people some good ideas ter by having it placed in a bigger con-
on how they might proceed with text. They said (Irvine and Gaffikin,
their own studies. 2006, p. 115): “While much qualitative
research has been undertaken within the
Apart from reviewing selected works on discipline of accounting, little or no in-
the subject of quality criteria of validity, tention has been paid to the way in
reliability and generalizability which which that research has been con-
provides the picture that there is much ducted.”
confusion of what these terms actually
mean in qualitative inquiry, the paper Aside from the analysis done on a selec-
gives focus to the reporting of these tion of qualitative accounting papers, a
quality criteria in a number of published total of twelve qualitative studies that
research papers. One set of papers is are concerned with various other fields
comprised of qualitative accounting re- in social sciences have been analyzed in
search recently published in top-ranked terms of their reporting of the quality
accounting journals. It appears that the criteria. Out of these twelve, five are
paper provides the only attempt to date PhD thesis while an additional three are
over such analysis of qualitative studies journal writings whose discussion on the
in accounting. variety of quality criteria are concerned
specifically with the use of specific re-
Perhaps, this is not surprising since over search methods such as convergent in-
the last two decades there appears to be terviews for data collection or analysis.
mere handful of published papers around These published works are chosen for
which give focus on the subject of qual- analysis since they would provide some
ity of qualitative studies in accounting. of the best portrayal of such reporting.
These would include Ahrens and Chap- Hence, they can be the models for those
man (2006), Atkinson and Shaffir researchers who are looking for the ac-
(1998), Lillis (2006), McKinnon (1988) ceptable ways in reporting the quality
and Modell (2005). In fact, in what ap- criteria which may or may not be the
pears to be one of the earliest writings validity, reliability and generalizability
on the subject matter of validity and reli- that are the focus of the paper.
ability in qualitative accounting studies,
the late McKinnon mentioned over two By having this analysis done together
decades ago the following (McKinnon, with that for a selected few accounting
1988, p. 34): papers, it is hoped that the paper shall be
able to contribute to improved practices
… field studies are frequently sub- in qualitative studies for those new in
jected to common and global criti- the field including doctoral candidates.
cisms of their apparent inability to For the doctoral students in particular
attend to such research criteria as they need no further reminder that dem-
validity and reliability … many pub- onstrating the trustworthiness of one’s
lished field studies in accounting do thesis is a requirement.
not report how issues of validity and
reliability are addressed. By and large, by focusing on the report-


ing of quality criteria in a total of 27 is concerned, particular craft skills such
published studies so that budding re- as member checking, accounting for
searchers in qualitative inquiry may be negative instances, analytic induction,
assisted in their work, the paper attempts the uses of numbers, using low inference
to be on the side propounded in Seale descriptors, the grounding of theory,
(1999) as opposed to those mentioned deconstructive approaches, reflexive
earlier as the varied positions on quality accounting and new textual forms of
in qualitative studies. Specifically, Seale reporting do not have to be linked inex-
(1999) emphasizes the need for re- tricably to particular philosophical or
searchers to gain the so called paradigm positions. In the final analysis,
“apprenticeship experiences” as opposed he considers a major threat to quality is
to “intense methodological awareness”. the idea that research must be carried out
He wrote (Seale, 1999, pp. 475-476): under the burden of fulfilling some phi-
losophical or methodological scheme.
Methodological writing is of limited Instead, in his view, what should be the
use to practicing social researchers, case is simply this (Seale, 1999, p. 472):
who are pursuing a craft occupation, “Practicing social researchers can learn
in large part learned “on the job,” to do good work from a variety of exam-
through apprenticeship, experience, ples, done within different “moments,”
trial, and error rather than by study- without needing to resolve methodologi-
ing general accounts of method … cal disputes before beginning their
Intense methodological awareness, work.”
if engaged in too seriously, can cre-
ate anxieties that hinder practice … Finally, it perhaps needs to be noted that
people learn how to do research the analysis done on the reporting of
through apprenticeship experiences, validity, reliability and generalizability
fortunately possible to have by read- in qualitative accounting papers is con-
ing others’ work rather than actually cerned with only a few of the relatively
going and sitting at their feet large number of these papers. A differ-
(although this also can be useful). ent sample might have given a some-
Any contemplation of other people’s what different picture. Also, it perhaps
research work, if it involves thinking needs to be stated out that the rudimen-
seriously about its strengths and tary analysis done for this paper on the
weaknesses, can be this kind of vi- reporting of quality criteria in fifteen
carious apprenticeship experience. qualitative studies from the accounting
field and twelve others from various
All in all, Seale disagrees with the idea other fields in the arena of social sci-
that philosophical, political, or theoreti- ences could very well move to the next
cal positions ought to determine the de- level with the focus on the specific re-
cisions that social researchers make “on search strategies undertaken. Such fur-
the ground” so that quality is underwrit- ther study with perhaps a much larger
ten by adherence to a particular position. sample of published studies could follow
Instead, in his view research practice in the footsteps of Barusch, Gringeri and
should be conceived as relatively George (2011) for the field of social
autonomous from such abstract and gen- work and Suter (2010) for personal rela-
eral considerations. In short, as far as he tionship.


In Barusch et al. (2011), they use Cres- validity, the generalizability of the re-
well’s (2007) eight strategies as the sults; reliability, the extent to which the
benchmark for rigour in assessing a ran- findings can be replicated; objectivity,
dom sample of 100 qualitative social the extent to which the findings are free
work articles drawn from selected social from bias. As perhaps to be expected,
work journals. As for Suter (2010), the those who do not consider themselves
strategies for validity that the so called positivists oppose such views.
“validity processes” are judged against
come from various methodological writ- Janesick (1994, p. 217) challenges the
ings in the field. A further study in the notion that the “trinity of validity, gener-
manner of Barusch et al. (2011) or that alisability and reliability”, terms usually
of Suter (2010) in a field such as ac- synonymous with the quantitative para-
counting should be able to deepen un- digm, should be strictly applied to all
derstanding on the extent of rigour or research. A decade later, Morgan and
quality in qualitative studies reported in Drury (2003) who agree with her explain
published works. why: in qualitative research, the re-
searcher is more interested in question-
The rest of the paper is divided into ing and understanding the meaning and
three sections. The next section covers interpretation of phenomena. But the
the varied understanding of validity, reli- issue involving these quality criteria
ability and generalizability in qualitative cannot easily be pushed away with such
research – together and separately. The remark. This can be seen in the efforts of
section which comes right after focuses others working in qualitative inquiry in
on specific references made to these coming out with new terms to replace
quality criteria in recent published pa- validity, reliability and other terms used
pers in the accounting field. The last in quantitative inquiry. Among the nota-
section is the discussion and conclu- ble ones are Guba and Lincoln (1981),
sions. As part of this third and last sec- Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Whitte-
tion, there is the inclusion of the analysis more et al. (2001).
done on the reporting of quality criteria
by a total of twelve published works in In the case of Guba and Lincoln (1981),
social sciences. they propose that the criteria to reach the
goal of trustworthiness in qualitative
inquiry are credibility, fittingness,
2. Validity, Reliability and Gener- auditability and confirmability. These
alizability are as opposed to the criteria internal
validity, external validity, reliability and
As mentioned in the introduction, there objectivity to reach the goal of rigour in
are varied positions over quality consid- quantitative inquiry. A few years later,
eration for qualitative research. For they suggest the criteria to now be credi-
many positivists, they feel that if a re- bility, transferability, dependability and
search does not satisfy several criteria, confirmability (Lincoln and Guba,
then it is not true research. These criteria 1985). Not every one agrees however
are (Guba and Lincoln, 1994): internal with these ideas of theirs. See for exam-
validity, the degree to which the results ple Hammersley (1992), Kuzel and
can be attributed to treatment; external Engel (2001) and Yin (1994). Perhaps in


regard to Yin (1994) the opposition is positivism; while we have nothing
not surprising. This is because he de- against coining new terms, particu-
scribes trustworthiness as a criterion to larly if this would avoid the concep-
test the quality of research design and tual baggage that may be attached to
not a goal of the research as proposed by a certain terminology, we believe that
Guba and Lincoln (1981) and Lincoln we may want to examine existing
and Guba (1985). tools before adding new terms to po-
tentially similar concepts.
Also, over two decades later, there is a
clear opposition among some parties in Later at the end of their writing, they
the use of these terms to describe the mention the following (Bergman and
quality criteria in qualitative inquiry. Coxon, 2005, p. 13):
Note the following coming from Morse
et al. (2002, p. 3): “… the broad and ab- Whether or not researchers coin their
stract concepts of validity and reliability own terminology because they reject
can be applied to all research because constructs that may have emerged
the goal of finding plausible and credible from another epistemological tradi-
outcome explanations is central to all tion, or whether they begin their
research.” Later, in the same work, the quality considerations by adopting
following is mentioned (Morse et al., the existing terminology is not im-
2002, p. 14): “Our argument is based on portant at this point. Instead, it is the
the premise that the concepts of reliabil- accountability of research practices
ity and validity as overarching con- through explicit description of re-
structs can be appropriately used in all search steps, which allow an audi-
scientific paradigms because, as Kvale ence to judge the plausibility of a
(1989) states, to validate is to investi- particular study and its findings.
gate, to check, to question, and to theo- (Emphasis added.)
rise. All of these activities are integral
components of qualitative inquiry that
ensure rigor.” Validity

Also note the following which is men- To understand what validity is in a re-
tioned more recently by Bergman and search inquiry, one only needs to refer to
Coxon (2005, p. 3): “Quality considera- the experts. But it seems that is not such
tions in empirical research tend to be a good idea as far as qualitative studies
addressed by the concepts “validity” and are concerned! For at least two main
“reliability”… We will critically exam- reasons. First, the experts themselves
ine some possibilities of these concepts have failed to be consistent. Second,
…” Next, in the attached footnote num- validity in qualitative inquiry comes
ber 3, the following is what they say: about in so many different ways of un-
derstanding. When it concerns the first
It has often been suggested that these reason, two fine examples are Harry
terms are inappropriate since they Wolcott and David Silverman. As for
have emerged from a positivistic tra- the second reason, the recent works by
dition. However, we argue that con- Spencer, Ritchie, Lewis and Dillon
cerns about data quality transcend (2003) and Onwuegbuzie (2002) are


proof enough. beginning writing early and sharing
ideas with others in the setting; letting
The first of two examples of experts in readers ‘see for themselves’; reporting
qualitative field who fail to be helpful fully; being candid; seeking feedback;
over the subject of validity is Harry trying to achieve a balance through rig-
Wolcott who for over three decades, as orous subjectivity; and, writing accu-
the master ethnographer, has chartered rately.
an interpretive, postpositivist approach
to the anthropology of educational prac- In the case of Silverman, as compared to
tices (Denzin, 1995, pp. 181-182). But Wolcott, he provides a more recent ex-
with his 1994 publication, calling for ample of resistance and confusion over
methods and texts that produce under- the issue of validity in qualitative re-
standing, not validity, he states (Wolcott, search. This is as far as Silverman
1994, p. 369): “I do not accept validity (2001) is concerned that is comprised of
as a valid criterion for guiding or judg- among others a chapter on validity, reli-
ing my work.” In his 1990 publication ability and generalization. As Kalekin-
earlier (as found in Onwuegbuzie, 2002, Fishman in her review of this work puts
p. 9), he in fact raises the question as to it (Kalekin-Fishman, 2001, p. 3):
whether validity is appropriate, legiti-
mate or useful in qualitative studies. In After acknowledging and detail-
his view, it seems validity interferes ing the weaknesses of the concep-
with his goal of understanding the un- tualization of reliability and valid-
derlying phenomenon. This has led On- ity on the home ground of quanti-
wuegbuzie (2002, p. 9), in commenting tative research, Silverman insists
over this stance of Wolcott, to mention on applying these same terms for
the following: “According to Wolcott, deciding the quality of every kind
understanding is a more fundamental of research. He is, for example,
concept for qualitative research than is adamant about testing for validity,
validity. Consequently, he attempts to i.e., for the “truthfulness” of evi-
understand what is occurring rather than dence, even though he agrees with
to convince his audience.” most qualitative theorists that this
is highly dubious goal.
Nonetheless, Wolcott seems unable to
dismiss validity outright. As pointed out Indeed, if a check is made on the sug-
by Spencer et al. (2003, p. 59), Wolcott gestions he made in the book regarding
is “[p]erhaps the most frequently cited the attainment of validity in qualitative
example of someone who apparently studies, one can find the followings: a
rejects validity while retaining its under- reliance on theoretical models to escape
lying concerns …” (Emphasis is in the cultural bias and methods such as ana-
original.) Next, they specify that Wol- lytic induction, constant comparative
cott (after saying that he cannot see any method and deviant case analysis. Such
place for validity in his work) has in fact ideas have led Kalekin-Fishman to say
made suggestions on how to produce the following (Kalekin-Fishman, 2001,
valid qualitative works. These are p. 3):
(Spencer et al., 2003, p. 59): listening
more than talking; recording accurately; By insisting that these methods as-


sure “validity”, Silverman is defend- y interpretive validity (Maxwell,
ing the positivistic postulate that 1992; Miller and Fredericks,
every type of social science has to be 1995)
committed to discovering the truth, y validity as incitement to discourse
even though throughout the book he (Lather, 1995)
defends a constructionist perspective. y reflexive validity (Stiles, 1993) or
(Emphasis in the original.) substantive validation (Angen,
2000)
With towering personalities in qualita- y dialectic validity (Waterman,
tive inquiry themselves showing evi- 1998)
dence of being conflicted over validity, y critical validity (Waterman, 1998)
there is perhaps little hope that minions y pragmatic validity (Kvale, 1996)
in the field can be crystal clear of what y catalytic or emancipatory validity
validity is and is not. Certainly the two (Stiles, 1993)
writings referred to next could not be of
much help either? Spencer et al. (2003, pp. 61-62) have
also concluded that the different notions
First, from Spencer et al. (2003) who of validity in the literature may be cate-
conduct a study on quality assessment of gorised into the following areas: method
qualitative research for the British gov- or research process, status of the find-
ernment, their literature search has led to ings, quality of relations with partici-
more than ten kinds of validity – and pants and impact of contribution of the
many of them are interchangeable with inquiry. This literature finding of theirs
other terms. For example, for descriptive is in contrast to their findings from the
validity (Maxwell, 1992; Miller and 29 in-depth interviews with government-
Fredericks, 1995), the other terms pro- based commissioners and managers of
viding the same meaning are descriptive research and policy makers, other fun-
adequacy (Hammersley, 1991) and va- ders of evaluation research, academics
lidity at the individual level (Sykes, and practitioners involved in conducting
1990). The validity which these terms qualitative research and writing about
refer to is concerned with researchers quality. Most of the discussion on valid-
actually capturing what they intended to ity that these interviewees were con-
study and accurately reporting what they cerned with is limited to the validity of
have seen or heard. Besides descriptive interpretations and conclusions (Spencer
validity, others pointed out and given the et al., 2003, p. 64). Spencer et al. (2003,
definitions by Spencer et al. (2003, p. pp. 63-64) have also found the existence
61) include: of different notions of validity together
with the different usage of validity terms
y validity of data generation among the research participants. It
(Mason, 2002) or procedural trust- seems some research participants can be
worthiness (Stiles, 1993) grouped as the positivists while others,
y validity of interpretation (Mason, post-positivists.
2002) or theoretical validity
(Maxwell, 1992; Miller and Besides Spencer et al. (2003), another
Fredericks, 1995) or explanatory recent effort which concerns validity
adequacy (Hammersley, 1991) criterion is by Onwuegbuzie (2002). To


develop the so-called Qualitative Legiti- Reliability
mation Model which attempts to inte-
grate many of the types of validity iden- Participants in the research conducted by
tified by qualitative researchers, he pro- Spencer et al. (2003, p. 65) mentioned
vides an interesting discussion on valid- earlier view reliability in qualitative re-
ity. He mentions that validity in qualita- search in the following manners: the
tive research has been operationalized in reassurance that another researcher in-
a myriad of ways with to date no one vestigating the same issue or working
definition of validity represents a he- with the same data set would derive the
gemony in qualitative research. The fol- same findings. But there are researchers
lowings are the definitions of validity: who have different views. Stenbacka
(2001) argues that since reliability issue
y consensual validity (Eisner, 1992) relates to measurements it has thus no
y catalytic validity (Lather, 1986) relevance in qualitative research. Simi-
y ironic legitimation (Lather, 1993) larly, Golafshani (2003, p. 601) writes
y paralogical legitimation (Lather, that the concept of reliability is irrele-
1993) vant in qualitative research. He nonethe-
y rihizomatic legitimation (Lather, less next mentions the following (p.
1993) 601): “To ensure reliability in qualitative
y voluptous legitimation (Lather, 1993) research, examination of trustworthiness
y communicative validity (Kvale, is crucial.”
1995)
y action validity (Kvale, 1995) The fact that there exist conflicting
y investigation validity (Kvale, 1995) views over the quality criterion of reli-
y descriptive validity (Maxwell, 1992) ability in qualitative inquiry have how-
y theoretical validity (Maxwell, 1992) ever failed to stop Morgan and Drury
y interpretive validity (Maxwell, 1992) (2003, p. 6) in detailing out in one long
y evaluative validity (Maxwell, 1992) paragraph how qualitative research can
attain an appropriate level of research
Finally, as if the situation over validity is reliability. They write:
not troublesome enough for the fact that
the experts themselves have failed to be This can be achieved by explaining
consistent and that there appears to be the methodological framework and
too many facets of validity in qualitative the range of strategies that have been
research, another dimension of validity used within the study. The rationale
confusion has arisen over the years with for the way in which participants
many researchers generating or adopting were selected to take part should also
what they consider to be more appropri- be described, as should the re-
ate terms to describe the qualifying searcher’s role and their perceived
check or measure for their research. So, relationship to those participants. It
instead of the term validity, as noted will be necessary to document ana-
Winter (2000, p. 6), these researchers lytic constructs and meanings, which
refer to ‘trustworthiness’, ‘worth’, derive from data, alongside the meth-
‘relevant’, ‘plausible’, ‘confirmable’, odological approach and procedures
credible or representative’. that were used for producing data.
This would include providing de-


scriptions of phenomena with appro- Generalizability
priate narrative of the social context
in which they occurred, particularly Typically, the word ‘generalizability’ is
in terms of persons, places and defined as the degree to which the find-
events. Theoretical propositions also ings can be generalized from the study
need to be fully explained in terms of sample to the entire population (Polit
how constructs have been formed and Hungler, 1991, p. 645 as found in
through detailed procedures. Myers, 2000, p. 2). Since qualitative
studies have found it difficult to achieve
In short, what they are saying is this: to this, these studies have continued to be
attain reliability in research, there is a criticized for their lack of generalizabil-
need for the qualitative researcher to ity. This is despite the many positive
document the succession of moves aspects of qualitative research and that
through the stages of data production, there are other types of generalizability
analysis and interpretation. It appears which qualitative research may still sat-
however that this explanation by Mor- isfy.
gan and Drury (2003) is concerned with
the type called external reliability as op- In regard to the latter, Spencer et al.
posed to internal reliability (Spencer et (2003, pp. 67-69) have listed them out as
al. 2003, pp. 64-65). follows:

Indeed, as far as Spencer et al. (2003) y representational generalization or
are concerned, there are more than one generalization within a case
or two notions of reliability. So, besides (Lewis and Ritchie, 2003);
internal and external reliability which y analytical or theoretical generali-
are concerned with the notion of consis- zation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967;
tency, there are: reliability as replication, Strauss and Corbin, 1998);
inter-coder reliability and auditability, y empirical or inferential generali-
dependability or reflexivity. To achieve zation (Stake, 1978; Lincoln and
the different notions of reliability, there Guba, 1985; Hammersley, 1992).
are various steps which a researcher
needs to undertake. For internal reliabil- All in all, just like the criteria of validity
ity, for example, the researcher may un- and reliability, there is more than one
dertake five different steps including type of qualitative generalization. But it
using a team of researchers and peer ex- seems to some parties these other types
amination. This is as opposed to the ex- do not exist or are not quite so signifi-
ternal reliability where the researcher cance as their favourite one. For them,
needs to clearly document in the writing there is only one kind of generalizabil-
another five different matters. These ity, and it is this very type which qualita-
matters include those quoted earlier tive studies would invariably fail to sat-
coming from Morgan and Drury (2003, isfy and which relegates these studies to
p. 6). be among those which they consider to
be lacking in rigour.


3. Validity, Reliability and Gener- close in the writing with or without spe-
alizability in Accounting Research cific reference made to the quality crite-
ria of interest. Such analysis needs first
In order to see the relevance of the qual- of all the preparation of a table of re-
ity criteria of validity, reliability and search strategies and the quality criteria
generalizability in accounting research, a which they satisfy. Next, there is a need
total of fifteen papers published in recent for a production of a checklist of appro-
years in the top ranked accounting jour- priate research strategies. Finally, the
nals is gathered and analysed. See Ap- checklist is used as a basis for compari-
pendix A. From the outset, it can be eas- son with details of research strategies
ily seen that nearly half or seven of them disclosed in those four papers particu-
does not even bother to make any spe- larly in their research method section.
cific reference to these quality criteria. Table 2 provides an example of a set of
As for the rest, most actually have also research strategies which need to be im-
failed to say much. The exceptional one plemented for establishing rigour in
is Sweeney and Pierce (2004). But even qualitative research. This list is prepared
this one has failed to refer to the quality based upon discussion in Baxter and
criterion of generalizability. Eyles (1997, pp. 506-510).

Nonetheless, out of the fifteen, aside Once the comparison is made and the
from Sweeney and Pierce (2004), four – result is known, a conclusion may thus
Beattie, Fearnley and Brandt (2004); be made in regard to the application of
Gendron, (2002); Gendron and Bedard, any quality criteria. That said, the lack
(2006); Kwok and Sharp (2005) - man- of disclosure of the research strategies
age to provide much details on their sec- for rigour or quality in a research paper
tion of the research method. This is in or report may not necessarily mean that
contrast to two - Herbach (2005), Ritten- the study has failed to implement them
berg and Covaleski (2001) - which pro- during the research process. Or, there is
vide quite minimal discussion on re- the possibility that the researchers and
search method. All in all, it is just one journal editors are those who uphold the
paper - Sweeney and Pierce (2004) – quality judgement position that there is
which may be said to have attained the no way to judge the quality of qualitative
level of excellence regarding the quality studies!
criteria. Another four papers – Beattie et
al. (2004); Gendron (2002); Gendron It is just perhaps due to space limitation
and Bedard (2006); Kwok and Sharp that leads to their failure in accounting
(2005) – may or may not be at the same for these research strategies in the re-
level. search writing. Nonetheless, for the
good of everyone involves in qualitative
In other to find out the truth for these research from authors to editors to read-
four papers, there is a need for a more ers, it is perhaps worth considering the
detailed analysis over research strategies following coming from Welsh (2002, p.
or practices which a qualitative re- 3):
searcher would normally undertake in
order to attain rigour or quality in his or Debate on the usefulness of the
her work and which he or she may dis- concepts of validity and reliability


Table 2
Strategies for Attaining Qualitative Rigour

Strategies Meaning

Rationale for methodol- Qualitative methods are argued to be the most (or only) appropri-
ogy ate
way to address the research question

Multiple methods More than one method used for studying the problem (e.g. in-
depth interviews plus participant observation plus textual analy-
sis)
Respondent A description of the group(s) of respondents (e.g. number and
gender
ratio is given)
Interview quotations The words of the respondent may be read or the presentation of
verbatim quotations

Interview practices Details of how interviews were conducted (e.g. use of interview
schedules are provided)

Procedures for analysis A description of how data were converted or condensed into
theoretical constructs is given

Immersion of lengthy It is argued that long fieldwork develop rapport with respondents
fieldwork and / or enable deep understandings of the research situation

Revisits Revisits to respondents are made usually to clarify meanings and
build rapport

Verification by respon- Respondents were contacted to verify interpretations or meanings
dents
Appeals to interpretive An existing theory is supported or refuted by the findings, i.e.,
community there is more than reference to the literature
Rationale for verification Rationale for showing that there is agreement between constructs
or interpretations and the meanings held by respondents is pro-
vided

in qualitative research has been carried out in a thorough and
undertaken for many years …. transparent manner …. However,
Some researchers suggest that in most published research it is
whilst these terms are inappropri- unusual to find accounts of ex-
ate in qualitative research, prefer- actly how researchers analysed
ring to use terms such as their data and it is partly because
“trustworthiness”, “rigorousness”, of this missing information that
or “quality” of the data, it is nev- this research tradition has been
ertheless important that qualita- open to allegations of
tive research and data analysis are “unthorough” research practices.


That Welsh (2002) is not alone in having may be said for the chart (p. 73) in Shen-
such view should not perhaps be surpris- ton (2004). See Appendix B for a section
ing. A more recent writing by Sinkovics, of this Table II and the chart.
Penz and Ghauri (2005, p. 32) seems to
It is also notable that Baxter and Eyles
point to the same direction:
(1997) have provided a list of eight
questions which they referred to in the
Qualitative research methodology
latter half discussion of their paper. It
… is often criticised for high lev-
seems an alternative move available in
els of subjectivity and low reli-
case a list shown in Table 2 earlier ap-
ability and validity. On a substan-
pear wanting to some whose qualitative
tive level this criticism is unfair
studies use interviews as the main
because qualitative research of-
method of data collection. Specifically,
fers holistic perspectives on phe-
it involves answering these eight ques-
nomena which cannot be
tions ranging from what was the natural
achieved otherwise. However,
history of the research to what results
criticism is often due to a low
are presented to how transferable are the
quality of documentation and re-
findings (Baxter and Eyles, 1997, pp.
porting of the findings cannot be
511-520). See Appendix C for the full
ignored. While quantitative stud-
listing of the questions. The following is
ies follow a rigorous organisation
what Baxter and Eyles (1997, p. 520)
and presentation in how results
say regarding these questions: “It serves
are presented, qualitative studies
not only as a guide for what to look for
are often reported in a descriptive
but reveals where gaps exist in reporting
and narrative way.
information necessary for ascertaining
rigour.” It is also interesting to note that
Baxter and Eyles (1997, p. 520) have
4. Discussion and Conclusions
further proposed that the four trustwor-
thy criteria and the corresponding strate-
With or without specific references
gies developed by Lincoln and Guba
made to quality criteria such as validity,
(1985) be incorporated into the research
reliability and generalizability in the re-
process as a basis for answering these
porting or publication of a piece of
questions.
qualitative research, a conscientious re-
searcher who are looking for rigour or
Other than Baxter and Eyles (1997),
quality in their work would be in no
Greenhalgh and Taylor (1997) and Mays
doubt see the need for the implementa-
and Pope (2000) are other examples of
tion of the necessary research strategies
those who produce lists of questions
or practices. Lincoln and Guba (1985),
which may be asked over a piece of
Baxter and Eyles (1997), Morse et al.
qualitative research. Greenhalgh and
(2002), Horsburgh (2003) and Shenton
Taylor’s (1997) list of nine questions is
(2004) are some of the writings which
however more appropriate for those in
provide extensive discussion of these
medical field. As for Mays and Pope’s
research strategies and the quality crite-
(2000) list, check out what they say (p.
ria which they satisfy. In particular, for
52): “We list some questions to ask for
Baxter and Eyles (1997), their Table II
any piece of qualitative research (box);
(p. 512) is quite revealing. The same
the questions emphasise criteria of rele-


vance and validity. They could also be Finally, despite the various positions on
used by researchers at different times quality judgement and that different sets
during the life of a particular research of quality criteria appear to exist for dif-
project to improve its quality.” Mays ferent kinds of qualitative studies, there
and Pope’s list may be found in Appen- are around more than a few qualitative
dix C. studies which can be considered quite
enlightening for the fact that they are
Though the presence of checklists able to balance the reporting of the story
should make it easy for researchers to with that of the research process under-
identify which steps to be taken prior to taken. In reporting the research process,
the undertaking of a research or which these papers have also made specific
steps are yet to be implemented while references to quality criteria such as va-
conducting the research, several writers lidity, relevance and generalizability to
have pointed out the problems that they varying degrees. Table 3 provides a list
may create for the same researchers. See of some of these works and their rele-
Barbour (2001) and Chapple and Rogers vant details.
(1998) on what these problems are. Not-
withstanding these problems, it seems At least two other types of writing are
their presence cannot be worse than that also available which make specific refer-
of different sets of quality criteria for ences to various quality criterion includ-
different types of qualitative studies ing validity, reliability and generalizabil-
which some parties have suggested to ity in their discussion. The first is con-
exist. See Chapple and Rogers (1998), cerned the conduct of qualitative re-
Klein and Myers (1999), Healy and search by students doing PhD. The sec-
Perry (2000) and Lilford, Edward, ond concerns the application of specific
Braunholtz, Jackson, Thornton and types of research method for data collec-
Hewison (2001). This myriad of quality tion and analysis in qualitative research.
criteria could very well be one of the Table 4 and Table 5 provide details of
reasons leading to researchers failing to the specific examples of the respective
make specific references to validity, reli- types of writings.
ability, generalizability or any other cri-
teria in their writings. And these re-
searchers may include Beattie et al. All in all, it may safely be said that the
(2004), Gendron (2002), Gendron and qualitative writings listed in Table 3,
Bedard (2006) and Kwok and Sharp Table 4 and Table 5 are some of the best
(2005) mentioned earlier. It is just per- examples as far as the incorporation of
haps too troublesome for them to refer to specific references on quality criteria in
these criteria in their papers when what the reporting of qualitative research is
is important is that they conduct their concerned.
studies as expected for rigour and that
the research strategies performed are All is apparently not lost!
reported to the extent possible.


Table 3
Enlightened Qualitative Studies

Study / Scope Field Type of Primary Methods Quality Crite-
Study for Data Collection ria Referred
/ Data Analysis To (number of
para.)

Cregan (2005) / Labour Induction Postal Survey / Validity
Australia Content Analysis, Reliability
Hierarchical Cluster (several
Analysis, Textual pages!)
Analysis
Efinger, Maldonado, PhD Phenomenol- Structured, Open- 3 Trustworthi-
McArdle (2004) / courses ogy Ended Questionnaire ness*
United States - Construc- / Content Analysis 5 Authentic-
tivist ity** (5)
Waldman, Lituchy, Quality Multiple Open-Ended Accuracy
Gopalakrishnan, La- Case-Study Interviews/ Objectivity
framboise, Galperin Pattern-Matching Reliability
and Kaltsounakis Validity (3)
(1998) / United
States
and Canada
Riley (1995) / Tourism Situational- Long Interviews / Credibility,
United States ism Grounded Theory Dependability,
Confirmability
(3)

Note: * Dependability, Tranferability and Credibility
** Fairness, Ontological Authenticity, Educative Authencity, Catalytic Authencity and
Technical Authencity


Table 4
The Conduct of Qualitative Research for a PhD
Study / Scope Research Strat- Primary Methods Quality Criteria
egy for Referred To
Data Collection / (number of para.)
Analysis
Bowen (2005) / Exploratory study In-Depth, Open- 4 Trustworthiness
United States Ended (7)
Interviews /
Grounded Theory

Peterson and Higgs Hermeneutics Conversational Inter- Credibility*
(2005) / views / Rigor
Transnational Hermeneutics Ethical (10 )

de Weerd-Nederhot Case Study Interviews/Within – Variety!
(2001) / And Cross – Case (several pages!)
The Netherlands Analysis ala
Miles and Huberman
(1994)
McCotter (2001) / Deconstruction Variety Validity (4)
United States
Carter (1999) / Multiple case Semi-Structured In- 4 Trustworthiness
Canada study terviews / (5)
Grounded Theory
Note: *Authenticity, Plausibility, Trustworthiness

Table 5
The Use of Specific Research Methods
for Data Collection / Analysis in Qualitative Studies

Study / Scope Field of Study Primary Quality Criteria
Methods for Referred To
Data Collec- (number of para.)
tion / Analysis
Rao and Perry (2003) / Marketing/ Convergent Construct Validity
Australia Internet Interviews Internal Validity
External Validity
Reliability (7)

Callahan and Elliot Behavioural Free Narrative Variety!
(1996) / Economics (several pages!)
United States
Yeung (1995) / International Qualitative Validity
Hong Kong and ASEAN Business Personal Reliability
Interviews (several pages!)


References ging the dog? British Medical
Journal, 322, 1115-1117.
Barusch, A., Gringeri, C., & George, M.
Adams, C.A., & Harte, G. (1998). The
(2011). Rigor in qualitative so-
changing portrayal of the employ-
cial work research: A review of
ment of women in British banks’
strategies used in published arti-
and retail companies’ corporate
cles. Retrieved June 02, 2011
annual reports. Accounting Or-
from http://www.faqs.org/ peri-
ganizations and Society, 23(8),
odicals/201103/2302649611.htm
781-812
l#ixzz1Nl0kfxpM
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C.S. (2006).
Baxter. J., & Eyles, J. (1997). Evaluating
Doing qualitative field research in
qualitative research in social ge-
management accounting: Posi-
ography: Establishing ‘rigour’ in
tioning data to contribute to the-
interview analysis. Transactions
ory. Accounting, Organizations
of the Institute of British Geogra-
and Society, 31, 819-841.
phers, 22(4), 505-525.
Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., &
Beattie, V., Fearnley, S., & Brandt, R.
Robson, K. (2001). Tests of time:
(2004). A grounded theory model
organizational time-reckoning and
of auditor-client negotiations. In-
the making of accountants in two
ternational Journal of Auditing, 8
multi-national accounting firms.
(1), 1-19.
Accounting, Organizations and
__________ (2001). Behind closed
Society, 26(2), 99-122.
doors: What company audit is
__________ (2005). “Helping them to
really about. Basingstoke, Hamp-
forget..”: The organizational em-
shire: Palgrave.
bedding of gender relations in
__________ (2000). "Behind the audit
public audit firms. Accounting,
report: a descriptive study of dis-
Organizations and Society, 30(5),
cussion and negotiations between
469-490.
auditors and directors", Interna-
Angen, M.J. (2000). Evaluating interpre-
tional Journal of Auditing, 4(2),
tive inquiry: Reviewing the valid-
177-202.
ity debate and opening the dia-
Bergman, M.M., & Coxon, A.P.M.
logue. Qualitative Health Re-
(2005). The quality in qualitative
search, 10(3), 378-395.
methods. Forum Qualitative So-
Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G.
cial Research [On-line Journal],
(2006). Internal audit in Italian
6(2). Retrieved September 03,
organizations: A multiple case
2006, from http://www.qualitative
study. Managerial Auditing Jour-
-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-
nal, 21(3), 275-292.
34-e.htm
Atkinson, A.A., & Shaffir, W. (1998).
Bowen, G.A. (2005). Preparing a quali-
Standards for field research in
tative research-based dissertation:
management accounting. Jour-
Lessons learned. The Qualitative
nal of Management Accounting
Report, 10(2), 208-222. Retrieved
Research, 10, 41-68.
September 03, 2006, from http://
Barbour, R.S. (2001). Checklists for
www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-2/
improving rigour in qualitative
bowen.pdf
research: A case of the tail wag-


Brown, S.M. (1992). Cognitive mapping product development systems.
and repertory grids for qualitative Management Decision, 39(7), 513
survey research: Some compara- -538.
tive observations. Journal of Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act:
Management Studies, 29(3), 287- A theoretical introduction to so-
307. ciological methods (2nd ed.). New
Callahan, C., & Elliot, C.S. (1996). Lis- York: McGraw-Hill.
tening: A narrative approach to _________ (1995). The experiential
everyday understandings and be- text and the limits of visual under-
havior. Journal of Economic Psy- standing. Educational Theory, 45
chology, 17(1), 79-114. (1), 7-18.
Carter, M. (1999). A profile of service- __________ & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.).
learning programs in South Caro- (1994). Handbook of qualitative
lina and their responsiveness to research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
the national priorities. Columbus, Sage Publications.
Ohio: Bell & Howell Company. Eberle, T.S. (2005). Promoting qualita-
Chapple, A., & Rogers, A. (1998). Ex- tive research in Switzerland. Fo-
plicit guidelines for qualitative rum Qualitative Social Research
research: A step in the right direc- [On-line Journal], 6(2). Retrieved
tion, a defence of the ‘soft option’ September 03, 2006, from http://
or a form of sociological imperial- www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-
ism? Family Practice, 15, 556- texte/2-05/05-2-31-e.htm
561. Efinger, J., Maldonado, J., & McArdle,
Cregan, C. (2005). Can organizing G. (2004). PhD students’ percep-
work? An inductive analysis of tions of the relationship between
individual attitudes toward union philosophy and research: A quali-
membership. Industrial and La- tative investigation. The Qualita-
bour Relations Review 58(2), 282- tive Report, 9(4), 732-759. Re-
304. trieved September 03, 2006, from
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative in- http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/
quiry and research design: QR9-4/efinger.pdf
Choosing among five traditions. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theo-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub- ries from case study research.
lications. Academy of Management Review,
Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). 14(4), 532-550.
Determining validity in qualita- Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in educa-
tive inquiry. Theory into Prac- tional research. Curriculum In-
tice, 39(3), 124-131. quiry, 22(1), 9-15.
Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualita- Gendron, Y. (2002). On the role of the
tive research and the question of organization in auditors’ client-
rigor. Qualitative Health Re- acceptance decisions. Accounting,
search, 12, 279-289. Organizations and Society, 27(7),
de Weerd-Nederhot, P.C. (2001). Quali- 659-684.
tative case study research: The __________ , & Bedard, J. (2006). On
case of a PhD research project on the constitution of audit commit-
organising and managing new tee effectiveness. Accounting, Or-


ganizations and Society, 31(3), auditor behaviour and the psycho-
211-239. logical contract. European Ac-
__________ ., Cooper, D.J., & Townley, counting Review, 10(4), 787–802.
B. (2007). The construction of Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of
auditing expertise in measuring qualitative research. Journal of
government performance. Ac- Clinical Nursing, 12(2), 307-312.
counting, Organizations and Soci- Huberman, M., & Miles, M.B. (1991).
ety, 32(1/2), 101-129. Analyse des données qualitatives:
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Recueil de nouvelles
discovery of grounded theory: Methods. Brussels: De Boeck-
Strategies of qualitative research. Wesmael.
London: Wiedenfeld and Nichol- Irvine, H.J., & Gaffikin, M. (2006). Get-
son. ting in, getting on and getting out:
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reflections on a qualitative re-
reliability and validity in qualita- search project. University of Wol-
tive research. The Qualitative Re- longong Research Online. Re-
port, 8(4), 597-607. trieved June 02, 2011 http://
Greenhalgh, T. & Taylor, R. (1997). ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/ viewcon-
How to read a paper: Papers that tent.cgi? article=1127&context=
go beyond numbers (qualitative commpapers&sei-
research). British Medical Jour- redir=1#search=% 22Ir-
nal, 315(7110), 740.-743. vine+H,+Gaffikin+M,+%
Grey, C., Robson, K., & Anderson, F. 282006%
(1997). Professional socialization 29+Getting+in,+getting+on+and+
in chartered accountancy prac- getting+ out:%22
tices: Making up accountants. Janesick, V.J. (1994). The dance of
London: ICAEW. qualitative research design: Meta-
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). phor, methodolatry, and meaning.
Effective evaluation. San Fran- In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S.
cisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). research (pp. 209-235). Thousand
Handbook of qualitative research. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi- Kalekin-Fishman, D. (2001). Review:
cations. David Silverman (2001). Inter-
Hammersley, M. (1991). Reading ethno- preting qualitative data: Methods
graphic research. London: Long- for analysing talk, text and inter-
man. action. Forum Qualitative Social
__________ (1992). What’s wrong with Research, 2(3). Retrieved Septem-
ethnography? London: Routledge. ber 03, 2006, from http://nbn-
Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Compre- resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-
hensive criteria to judge validity fqs010363
and reliability of qualitative re- King, N. (1994). The qualitative re-
search within the realism para- search interview. In Cassell, C., &
digm. Qualitative Market Re- Symon, G. (Eds.), Qualitative
search, 3(3), 118-126. methods in organizational re-
Herrbach, O. (2001). Audit quality, search: A practical guide (pp. 14-


36). London: Sage Publications. for qualitative research in applied
Klein, H.K., & Myers, M.D. (1999). In- linguistics: Whose criteria and
vestigating information systems whose research? Modern Lan-
with ethnographic research. Com- guage Journal, 87, 1-12.
munications of the Association for Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J. (Eds.). (2003).
Information System, 2(23), 1-20. Qualitative research practice - A
Kuzel, A. & Engel, J. (2001). Some guide for social science students
pragmatic thought on evaluating and researchers. London: Sage
qualitative health research. In Publications.
Morse, J., Swanson, J., & Kuzel, Lilford, R.J., Edwards, S., Braunholtz,
A. (Eds.). The nature of qualita- D.A., Jackson, J., Thornton, J., &
tive evidence (pp. 114-138). Hewison, J. (2001). Ethical issues
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi- in the design and conduct of ran-
cations. domised controlled trials. In Ste-
Kvale, S. (1989). Issues of validity in vens, A.J.H., Abrams, K., Brazier,
qualitative research. Lund, Swe- J., Fitzpatrick, R., Lilford, R.J.
den: Chartwell Bratt. (Eds.). Advanced Handbook of
______ (1995). The social construction Methods in Evidenced Based
of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, Healthcare (pp. 11-24). Thousand
19-40. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
______ (1996). Interviews: An introduc- Lillis, A.M (2006). Reliability and valid-
tion to qualitative research. Thou- ity in field study research. In
sands Oaks, London, New Delhi: Hoque, Z. (Ed.) Methodological
Sage Publications. issues in accounting research:
Kwok, Chee Chiu, & Sharp, D. (2005). Theories and methods (pp. 461-
Power and international account- 475). London: Spiramus.
ing standard setting: Evidence Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985).
from segment reporting and intan- Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
gible assets projects. Accounting, Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Auditing and Accountability Jour- Mason, O.J. (2002). Teaching qualitative
nal, 18(1), 74-99. research methods: Some innova-
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in tions and reflections on practice.
openly ideological research: Be- Psychology Teaching Review, 10
tween a rock and a soft place. In- (1), 68-75.
terchange, 17(4), 63-84. Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding
______ (1993). Fertile obsession: Valid- and validity in qualitative re-
ity after poststructuralism. The search. Harvard Educational Re-
Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673 view, 62(3), 279-300.
-93. __________ (2004). Qualitative re-
______ (1995). Post-critical pedagogies: search design: An interactive
A feminist reading. In McLaren, approach (2nd ed.). Beverly
P. (Ed.) Postmodernism, postcolo- Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
nialism and pedagogy (pp. 167- Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Qualita-
186). Albert Park: James Nicholas tive research in health care: As-
Publishers. sessing quality in qualitative
Lazaraton, A. (2003). Evaluative criteria research. British Medical Jour-


nal. 320(7226), 50-52. Qualitative Report, 4(3/4). Re-
McCotter, S.S. (2001). The journey of a trieved September 03, 2006, from
beginning researcher. The Quali- http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/
tative Report, 6(2). Retrieved Sep- QR4-3/myers.html
tember 03, 2006, from http:// Neimark, M.D. (1992). The hidden di-
www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-2/ mensions of annual reports.
mccotter.html London: Paul Chapman.
McKinnon, J. (1988). Reliability and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2002). Positivists,
validity in field research: some post-positivists, post-
strategies and tactics. Account- structuralists, and post-
ing, Auditing and Accountabil- modernists: Why can’t we all get
ity, 1, 34-54. along? Towards a framework for
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994), unifying research paradigms. Edu-
Qualitative data analysis: An ex- cation, 122(3), 518–530.
panded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Lon- Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative evalua-
don: Sage Publications. tion and research methods (2nd
Miller, S., & Fredericks, M. (1995). The ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publi-
nature of ‘evidence’ in qualitative cations.
research methods. Qualitative Peterson, M., & Higgs, J. (2005). Using
Health Research, 5, 388-397. hermeneutics as a qualitative re-
Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation be- search approach in professional
tween case study and survey practice. The Qualitative Report,
methods in management ac- 10(2), 339-357.
counting research: An assess- Polit, D., & Hungler, B. (1991). Nursing
ment of validity implications. research: Principles and methods.
Management Accounting Re- New York: JB Lippincott.
search, 16, 231-254. Rao, S., & Perry, C. (2003). Convergent
Morgan, A.K., & Drury, V.B. (2003). interviewing to build a theory in
Legitimising the subjectivity of under-researched areas: Principles
human reality through qualitative and an example investigation of
research method. The Qualitative internet usage in inter-firm rela-
Report, 8(1). Retrieved September tionships. Qualitative Market Re-
03, 2006, from http:// search: An International Journal,
www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1/ 6(4), 236-247.
morgan.html Riley, M. (1995). Tourism development
under close control: The case of
Morse J.M., Barrett M., Mayan M., Ol- the Falkland Islands. Tourism
son K. & Spiers J. (2002). Verifi- Management, 16(6), 471-474.
cation strategies for establishing Rittenberg, L.E., & Covaleski, M.A.
reliability and validity in qualita- (2001). Internalization versus ex-
tive research. International Jour- ternalization of the internal audit
nal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), function: An examination of pro-
1-19. fessional and organizational im-
Myers, M. (2000). Qualitative research peratives. Accounting, Organiza-
and the generalizability question: tions and Society 26, 617–641.
Standing firm with proteus. The Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualita-


tive interviewing: The art of search requires quality concepts
hearing data. London: Sage of its own. Management Decision,
Publications. 39(7), 551-555.
Sarens, G., & De Beelde, I. (2006), Stiles, W.B. (1993). Quality control in
Building a research model for in- qualitative research. Clinical Psy-
ternal auditing: Insights from lit- chology Review, 13, 593–618.
erature and theory specification Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics
cases. International Journal of of qualitative research: Grounded
Accounting, Auditing and Per- theory procedures and techniques.
formance Evaluation, 3(4), 452- Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica-
470. tions.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 of qualitative research: Tech-
(4), 465-478. niques and procedures for devel-
Shenton, A.K. (2004). The analysis of oping grounded theory (2nd ed.).
qualitative data in LIS research London: Sage Publications.
projects: A possible approach. Suter, E.A. (2010). Validity in qualita-
Education for Information, 22, tive research on personal rela-
143-162. tionships. Kentucky Journal of
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Communication special issue on
qualitative data: Methods for ana- the future of relational commu-
lysing talk, text and interaction nication. Retrieved June 02,
(2nd ed.). London: Sage Publica- 2011 from https://
tions. portfolio.du.edu/pc/port?
Sinkovics, R.R., Penz, E., & Ghauri, portfolio=esuter
P.N., (2005). Analysing textual Sweeney, B., & Pierce, B. (2004). Man-
data in international marketing agement control in audit firms: A
research. Qualitative Marketing qualitative examination. Account-
Research: An International Jour- ing, Auditing and Accountability
nal, 8(1), 9–38. Journal, 17(5), 779-812.
Siti-Nabiha, A.K., & Scapens, R.W. Sykes, W. (1990).Validity and reliability
(2005). Stability and change: An in qualitative market research: A
institutionalist study of manage- review of the literature. Journal of
ment accounting change. Account- the Market Research Society, 32
ing, Auditing and Accountability (3), 289-328.
Journal, 18(1), 44-73. Thompson, J.B. (1988). Critical Herme-
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dil- neutics (4th ed.). Cambridge:
lon, L. (2003). Quality in qualita- Cambridge University Press.
tive evaluation: A framework for Unerman, J. (2000). Reflections on
assessing research evidence. Lon- quantification in corporate social
don: National Centre for Social reporting content analysis. Ac-
Research. counting, Auditing and Account-
Stake, R. (1978). The case study method ability Journal, 13(5), 667-680.
in social inquiry. Educational Re- Unerman, J. (2003). Enhancing organ-
searcher, 7(2), 5-8. izational global hegemony with
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative re- narrative accounting disclosures:


An early example. Accounting Systematic Fieldwork: Vol.1,
Forum, 27(4), 425-448. Foundations of Ethnography
Van Peursem, K.A. (2004). Internal and Interviewing. Newbury Park,
auditors’ role and authority: New CA: Sage.
Zealand evidence. Managerial Whittemore, R., Chase, S.K., & Mandle,
Auditing Journal, 19(3), 378-393. C.L. (2001). Validity in qualita-
__________ (2005). Conversations with tive research. Qualitative Health
internal auditors: The power of Research, 11, 522-537.
ambiguity. Winter, G. (2000). A comparative dis-
Managerial Auditing Journal, 20 cussion of the notion of ‘validity’
(5), 489-512. in qualitative and quantitative re-
Waldman, D.A., Lituchy, T., search. Qualitative Report, 4(3/4).
Gopalakrishnan, M., Laframboise, Retrieved September 03, 2006,
K., Galperin, B., and Kalt- from http://www.nova. edu/ssss/
sounakis, Z. (1998). A qualitative QR/QR4-3/winter.html
analysis of leadership and quality Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming quali-
improvement. Leadership Quar- tative data: Description analysis
terly, 9(2), 177-201. and interpretation. Thousand
Waterman, H. (1998). Embracing ambi- Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
guities and valuing ourselves: Is- Yeung, H. Wai-chung. (1995). Qualita-
sues of validity in action research. tive personal interviews in inter-
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28 national business research: Some
(1), 101-105. lessons from a study of Hong
Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Kong Transnational Corporations.
Using NVivo in the qualitative International Business Review, 4
data analysis process. FQS, 3(2). (3), 313-339.
Retrieved September 03, 2006, Yin, R. (1994). Case study research:
from http://www.qualitative- Design and method (2nd ed.).
research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02 Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publica-
welsh-e.htm tions.
Werner, O., & Schoepfle, G. (1987).

11.vol 0005www.iiste.org call for paper_no 1-2_ pp. 25-64

11.vol 0005www.iiste.org call for paper_no 1-2_ pp. 25-64

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 11.vol 0005www.iiste.org call for paper_no 1-2_ pp. 25-64

Similar to 11.vol 0005www.iiste.org call for paper_no 1-2_ pp. 25-64 (20)

More from Alexander Decker

More from Alexander Decker (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

11.vol 0005www.iiste.org call for paper_no 1-2_ pp. 25-64