Validity

Applicability of Validity to Action Research

The concept of validity was developed in traditional quantitative research, where it fits well. A well-conducted physical experiment when it is replicated is likely to give the same results as before. When it does, the accuracy—the validity—of the findings can be accepted with confidence. In contrast, situations involving human actors in interaction are characterized by greater uncertainty and unpredictability. Action research studies such situations, which may be described technically as ‘complex systems’. Very often, these systems can behave very differently than the way simple physical systems behave. As a consequence, different repetitions of an action research study are unlikely to yield identical results except at high levels of abstraction, and not always then.

In action research, attitudes to the use of validity as a concept subdivide researchers into two camps. Influenced by the US qualitative research literature, there are those who favour the replacement of validity by other concepts. Others use the term, while advocating its modification to suit the requirements of action research. In some action research literature, the term quality is used rather than validity, while other authors such as Hilary Bradbury and Peter Reason use the two terms more or less interchangeably. Similarly, some treat validity and trustworthiness as interchangeable terms.

Yvonna Lincoln has been an influential advocate of the view that qualitative research should develop its own criteria for evaluating research. Her views have been influential in action research too. Initially, her criteria took the form of labels for concepts that were analogous to their traditional counterparts. Rigour was translated to trustworthiness. Internal validity became credibility, and external validity or generalizability became transferability (see below). Lincoln has since developed other terms that are not translations of traditional concepts from quantitative research. However, her earlier concepts still have wide currency, again also with some action researchers. For many who take this view, there is a concern that, evaluated against traditional criteria for validity, those who don’t sufficiently understand non-traditional research may find action research and qualitative research wanting.

Janice Morse is an example of those who hold a contrary view. Motivated by a wish for qualitative research to be accepted as a legitimate form of research, she argues that it is to the advantage of qualitative researchers that they are accepted as part of the wider research community. To this end, quantitative concepts of validity can be translated to fit qualitative research. Part of this argument is that qualitative research (and by implication action research) can be performed to sufficiently high standards that its quality can be defended against those who question it. Qualitative research, quantitative research and action research can then be treated as [Page 804]complementary research approaches suited to different research situations and purposes.

...