Authenticity Criteria

Authenticity criteria are criteria appropriate for judging the quality of inquiry (research, evaluation, and policy analysis) conducted within the protocols of emergent, nonpositivist paradigms such as CRITICAL THEORY, participant inquiry, CONSTRUCTIVISM, and others. Positivist criteria of rigor are well established: INTERNALVALIDITY, EXTERNALVALIDITY, RELIABILITY, and OBJECTIVITY. An early effort to devise similar but nonpositivist ways of assessing inquiry quality resulted in so-called trustworthiness criteria (Guba, 1981), constructed as “parallels” to the four standard criteria and termed, respectively, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. But their very parallelism to the standard criteria of rigor makes their applicability to alternative inquiry approaches suspect. Moreover, the standard criteria are primarily methodological, overlooking such issues as power, ethics, voice, access, representation, and others raised by POSTMODERNISM.

The authenticity criteria were developed rooted in the propositions of alternative inquiry paradigms (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This set is incomplete and primitive but may serve reasonably well as guidelines.

Certain initial conditions are prerequisite to all five authenticity criteria. These include the following: Respondents are drawn from all at-risk groups, fully INFORMED CONSENT procedures are in place, caring and trusting relationships are nurtured, inquiry procedures are rendered transparent to all respondents and audiences, and respondent-inquirer collaboration is built into every step, with full agreement on the rules to [Page 44]govern the inquiry and with information fully shared. The inquiry report is guaranteed to be available to all respondents and audiences. Finally, an appellate mechanism is established to be used in cases of conflict or disagreement.

Definitions of the criteria, together with recommended procedures to establish them, follow:

• Fairness is defined as the extent to which all competing constructions of reality, as well as their underlying value structures, have been accessed, exposed, deconstructed, and taken into account in shaping the inquiry product, that is, the emergent reconstruction. Certain procedures should be strictly followed. All prior constructions of respondents and inquirer are obtained, compared, and contrasted, with each enjoying similar privilege; prior and later constructions are compared and contrasted; respondents and inquirer negotiate data to be collected, methods to be employed, interpretations to be made, modes of reporting to be employed, recommendations to be made, and actions to be proposed (taken); introspective statements (testimony) about changes experienced by respondents and inquirer are collected; prolonged engagement and persistent observation are used; individual and group member checks/validations are employed; thick contextual description is provided; peer debriefers and auditors are used (implying the maintenance of an audit trail); and, finally, the degree of empowerment felt by respondents is assessed.
• Ontological authenticity is defined as the extent to which individual respondents' (and the inquirer's) early constructions are improved, matured, expanded, and elaborated, so that all parties possess more information and become more sophisticated in its use. Useful procedures include the following: explication of the respondents' and the inquirer's a priori positions; comparison of respondents' earlier and later personal constructions; solicitation of respondents' and the inquirer's introspective statements about their own growth, as well as the testimony of selected respondents regarding their own changing constructions; and the establishment of an audit trail demonstrating changes.
• Educative authenticity is defined as the extent to which individual respondents (and the inquirer) possess enhanced understanding of, appreciation for, and tolerance of the constructions of others outside their own stakeholding group. Useful procedures include the following: employment of a peer debriefer and an auditor by the inquirer, comparison of respondents' and the inquirer's assessments of the constructions held by others, respondents' and the inquirer's introspective statements about their understandings of others' constructions, respondent testimony, and maintenance of an audit trail.
• Catalytic authenticity is defined as the extent to which action (clarifying the focus at issue, moving to eliminate or ameliorate the problem, and/or sharpening values) is stimulated and facilitated by the inquiry process. Knowledge in and of itself is insufficient to deal with the constructions, problems, concerns, and issues that respondents bring to the inquiry process for elucidation; purposeful action must also be delineated. Useful procedures include the following: development of a joint construction (aiming at consensus when possible or explication of conflicting values when consensus is not possible), including the assignment of responsibility and authority for action; plans for respondent-inquirer collaboration; accessibility of the final report; and evidence of practical applications. Testimony of participants, the actual resolution of at least some of the inquiry concerns, and systematic follow-up over time to assess the continuing value of outcomes are also helpful techniques.
• Tactical authenticity is defined as the degree to which participants are empowered to take the action(s) that the inquiry implies or proposes. Useful procedures include the following: negotiation of data to be collected, as well as their interpretation and reporting; maintenance of confidentiality; use of consent forms; member checking/validation; and prior agreements about power. The best indicator that this criterion is satisfied is participant testimony. The presence of follow-up activities is highly indicative. Finally, the degree of empowerment felt by stakeholders is crucial.

The present state of developing authenticity criteria leaves much to be desired. Perhaps the most significant accomplishment to date is simply their existence, a demonstration of the fact that it is possible to “think outside the box” of conventional quality assessments. It is imperative for the inquirer to have thought through just what paradigm he or she elects to follow and, having made that decision, to select quality criteria that are appropriate. Applying positivist criteria to alternative paradigm inquiries (or conversely) can lead only to confusion and conflict.

...