The document discusses reliability and validity in qualitative research. It begins by explaining quantitative research and how reliability and validity are defined and ensured in quantitative methods. It then explores how reliability and validity are approached differently in qualitative research since the goals of qualitative research are understanding rather than generalization. Specifically: Reliability in qualitative research focuses on dependability and quality of explanation rather than replicability. Validity is more contingent on the research methodology and aims for understanding rather than truth. Researchers ensure validity in qualitative work through approaches like triangulation of data sources and analysis methods. Overall the document calls for refining definitions of reliability and validity for qualitative research.

1. Summary: Understanding Reliability and Validity in Organizational Research
Submitted to: Dr. Munish Thakur
Submitted by: Akshay S Bhat
Course: Advanced Research Methods
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this article is to discuss the use of Reliability and Validity in the
QualitativeResearch Paradigm, but for this the article first takes us through what
Quantitative Research is and how reliability and validity are used in quantitative research
techniques in establishing truths. Studying quantitative research and understanding
reliability and validity will serve as a springboard over which we will be leveraging our
understanding to have the same approach in qualitative research.
In quantitative research the researcher first acclimatizes him or her to the problem
to be studied or the concept which he is working on and then generate hypotheses to be
tested in this there are four steps delineated:-
(1) the emphasis is on facts and causes of behavior
(2) the information is in the form of numbers that can be quantified and
summarized
(3) the mathematical process is the norm for analyzing the numeric data and
(4) the final result is expressed in statistical terminologies
The quantitative researcher as described in this article appreciates the phenomena which
he is studying by delimiting it to a set of standards he is accustomed to or familiar with; also if he
is measuring responses of the people, he assigns a numerical value to each of their responses.
This place a lot of emphasis on the measuring tool or instrument, therefore validity of this
instrument is of prime importance to us. The test is supposed to validate if what we are
measuring is what was truly meant to be measured? Therefore replicability and reliability of the
result is of prime importance.
And before we go into more profound details at the onset we describe:-
Reliability: “The extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate
representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results
of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is
considered to be reliable.”
So basically it cities the idea of how much repeatability is seen in the observations or
results.

2. Kirk and Miller (1986) identified three types of reliability referred to in quantitative research,
which relates to:
the degree to which a measurement, given repeatedly, remains the same
the stability of a measurement over time; and
the similarity of measurements within a given time period
But there are a few open ended arguments by the critics, who state that because some
people who answer to certain types of questionnaire which are same but measure at different
points in time may have different results, primarily owing to the fact that the responder might
have sensitized himself to the questions, may want to project some desirable image after getting
to know the results of the first questionnaire et al.
Cynics and dissenters still question the integrity of the tests itself, citing that certain
researchers have the ability to duplicate observations and numbers which ensure repeatability
and internal consistency, and hence the reliability of the test instrument but the instrument in
itself may not be valid.
Validity: “Validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was
intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the
research instrument allow you to hit "the bull’s eye" of your research object? Researchers
generally determine validity by asking a series of questions, and will often look for the
answers in the research of others.”
The validity in Quantitative Techniques is defined as “construct validity”, the
construct is the initial concept, notion, question or hypothesis that determines which data
is to be gathered and how it is to be gathered. Also, “quantitative researchers actively cause
or affect the interplay between construct and data in order to validate their investigation,
usually by the application of a test or other process. In this sense, the involvement of the
researchers in the research process would greatly reduce the validity of a test.”(Golafshani,
2003)
But when we shift gear and come to qualitative research will these definitions hold
good? While a quantitative researcher will be concerned with the degree to which the
results will repeat and more over have they actually observed or measured what they
intended to measure, the qualitative researcher on the other hand would be concerned
over not repeatability but the precision, credibility and transferability. So when we
evaluate these paradigms, Golafshani (2003) says that two different approaches, and if I
were to draw an analogy to this would be like the same poles of two magnets which repel
each other.
We now move to what Qualitative Research is? Qualitative research is a paradigm of
methodologies which seek to understand the natural phenomena in the natural setting, one

3. in which concrete hypotheses are not set and rather are an evolving process. In Qualitative
research, findings are not arrived at by statistical tools but unfold naturally. Hoepfl (1997)
said “Unlike quantitative researchers who seek causal determination, prediction, and
generalization of findings, qualitative researchers seek instead illumination, understanding,
and extrapolation to similar situations”.
But one major highlight by the author is that he views the researcher of the
qualitative paradigm to be of utmost importance to his or her researcher and unlike
quantitative research in qualitative research the credibility of the research lies on the
ability of the researcher. In the case of the quantitative researcher the credibility lies on the
instrument whereas in this case (qualitative research) it is the researcher himself in first
person.
Reliability in Qualitative Research:The test of reliability in this case would be one where in
the research is tested for its quality and its ability to explain an otherwise obfuscating
situation. Stenbacka (2001) stated “This relates to the concept of a good quality research
when reliability is a concept to evaluate quality in quantitative study with a “purpose of
explaining” while quality concept in qualitative study has the purpose of “generating
understanding””
Stenbacka also questioned the need of reliability in Qualitative Research, stating the
fact that qualitative research did not need reliability and that that concept was irrelevant if
not misleading as well.
On the other hand Patton et al. (2001) felt that reliability and validity were
important concepts asserting that there should be certain ways in which an inquirer can
convince the audience he wishes to address to appreciate his or her findings. Lincoln &
Guba (1985) used the term “dependability” as a surrogate to “reliability” when it came to
quality research. Also “dependability” could be further bolstered be an inquiry audit.
Validity in Qualitative Research: The concept of Validity is not well defined by scholars in
Qualitative research paradigm, rather ““rather a contingent construct, inescapably grounded
in the processes and intentions of particular research methodologies and projects””is how
qualitative research scholars address the issue of finding the surrogate of “validity” in this
paradigm. Also they have debated the need for a refined definition.
The author further takes the support of many eminent scholars who have advocated
triangulation approach in order to test their theory/research finding. Triangulation is as
defined in the paper “Triangulation may include multiple methods of data collection and
data analysis, but does not suggest a fix method for all the researches. The methods chosen in
triangulation to test the validity and reliability of a study depend on the criterion of the
research.

4. The author then calls for a refined approach of the above three terms and some
amount of standardization for the establishment of truth via the qualitative route.