Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 233-249

  Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J ^a   Leech, Nancy L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Criteria; Legitimation; Qualitative research; Rigor; Standards; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847395831     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th edn. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Becker, H. S. (1970). Sociological Work: Method and Substance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
3. Brinberg, D. & McGrath, J. E. (1987). Validity and the Research Process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4. Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin 54: 297-312.
5. Campbell, D. T. (1963a). From description to experimentation: Interpreting trends as quasiexperiments. In: C. W. Harris (ed.), Problems in Measuring Change. Madison, WI: University of Chicago Press, pp. 212-242.
6. Campbell, D. T. (1963b). Social Attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions. In: S. Koch (ed.), Psychology: A Study of Science: Investigations of Man as Socius, vol. 6. New York: Rand McNally.
7. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
8. Connolly, P. (1998). 'Dancing to the wrong tune': Ethnography generalization and research on racism in schools. In: P. Connolly & B. Troyna (eds.), Researching Racism in Education: Politics, Theory, and Practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
9. Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal 29:253-266.
10. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: Praeger.
12. Eisenhart, M. A. & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In: M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy & J. Preissle (eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 643-680.
13. Eisner, E. W. (1975). The Perspective Eye: Toward the Reformulation of Educational Evaluation. Occasional papers of the Stanford Evaluation Consortium. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
14. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan.
15. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L. & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. Fielding, N. & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17. Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
18. Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R. & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress. Psychological Review 93: 216-229.
19. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20. Halpern, E. S. (1983). Auditing Naturalistic Inquiries: The Development and Application of a Model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
21. Howe, K. R. & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher 19(4): 2-9.
22. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602-611.
23. Kidder, L. H. (1981). Qualitative research and quasi-experimental frameworks. In: M. B. Brewer & B. E. Collins (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry 1: 19-40.
25. Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange 17: 63-84.
26. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly 34: 673-693.
27. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry 1: 275-289.
28. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62: 279-299.
30. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Merriam, S. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher 13: 20-30.
33. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Newman, I. & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
35. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003a). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools 10: 71-90.
36. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003b). Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology 37(4): 393-409.
37. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Daniel, L. G. (2003, February 12). Typology of analytical and interpretational errors in quantitative and qualitative educational research. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 6(2). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number2/.
38. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. (2005, February). Sampling Designs in Qualitative Research: Making the Sampling Process More Public. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
39. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 351-383.
40. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. Phillips, D. C. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry about warrant will not wane. Education and Urban Society 20: 9-24.
42. Scriven, M. (1974). Maximizing the power of causal investigations: The modus operandi method. In: W. J. Popham (ed.), Evaluation in Education - Current Applications. Berkeley, CA: Sage, pp. 68-84.
43. Sechrest, L. & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning 18: 77-87.
44. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Williams, D. D. (1986). Naturalistic evaluation: Potential conflicts between evaluation standards and criteria for conducting naturalistic inquiry. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 8: 87-99.
47. Wolcott, H. (1990). On seeking - and rejecting-validity in qualitative research. In: E. Eisner & A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 121-152.