When evaluating some articles related to the subject of the rigor of scientific endeavor from the qualitative model, I confess that I have barely been able to illuminate the way towards understanding this plot. Perhaps the complex thing has been to discover a series of arguments from the ontological, epistemological and methodological point of view, which support various postulates in this matter.
Based on this appreciation, I intend to approach the construction of a generalized vision about what scientific rigor means in qualitative research, the aspect of which must be achieved by the researcher if he wants his product to contain the appropriate quality and scientific tenor. This is achieved by practicing epistemological surveillance exercises, to ensure that the work carried out remains within the scientific framework, from the initial approach to the object of study, through the analysis and presentation of the results.
So, before starting this journey, I must warn of the barriers that qualitative researchers have had to face since they have managed to stand out from the positivist postulates, which conceive the scientific endeavor from a single point of view. For example, with social research, humanity has witnessed the fact that science has achieved a very important turn in the way of knowing scientifically the phenomena studied, by not limiting them only to the manipulation of some of their variables.
This epistemological turn has allowed qualitative researchers an effective approach towards the social construction of knowledge, since its hermeneutical orientation facilitates the study and understanding of the reality where human beings develop.
Now, this emerging research design has revealed the fundamental role that the researcher has since, among many aspects that must be handled, the form of contact with the studied phenomenon and the interpretive perspective that it develops on what it sees, hears, stands out. and understands in the context of the reality that affects the object of study.
Within this order of ideas, the following question arises: What elements must a research work contain under the qualitative approach, to be considered that it meets the criteria of scientific rigor? In this context and with the intention of generating some contributions to this question, consider the opinion of Lincoln and Guba (1985), cited by Arias and Giraldo (2011):
Naturalistic inquiry should be judged by dependability, understood as a systematic process, and authenticity that includes three criteria, 1) reflective awareness of one's own perspective, 2) appreciation of the perspectives of others, and 3) impartiality in the constructions, descriptions, representations and values on which they are based (p. 503).
Another contribution on the subject is expressed by Ruiz Olabuénaga (1996), cited by Concha, Barriga and Henríquez (2011):
An investigation is valid if it 'gets it right', if it 'hits the spot', if it 'discovers', if it 'measures correctly', if it 'reaches the phenomenon' that it wants to reach, discover, measure, analyze or understand. Its excellence will be all the more remarkable the closer it gets to this object and the greater the guarantee of having managed to validate it (p. 96)
For his part, Alvarez-Gayou (2003), referring to the issue of validity in qualitative research, opines: “it will be preferable and more descriptive to speak of the need for authenticity, rather than validity. This means that people can really express their feelings ”(p. 32).
It seems that the opinions expressed above converge in the "perspective" that the validity of qualitative research is related to the scientificity of the work, based on sufficient epistemological and methodological explanation and, of course, the solidity of the argumentation exhibited during development. of the investigative process, which empowers with scientific rigor the postulates and demonstrations that have been made.
On the other hand, there is the aspect of legitimacy, which is evaluated by the social factors to which the research is directed and the scientific community in general, and is expressed in the degree of assertiveness that its results have on the phenomenon studied that is, how correct was the diagnosis or understanding of the reality addressed, as long as he or the qualitative researchers, in the exercise of paradigmatic coherence, have adopted a research design and a methodological framework aligned with the onto-epistemic approach that requires the nature of the phenomenon to be studied and in total harmony with its scientific position.
In other words, the quality and credibility of the qualitative work, orient its foundation in the capacity of the researcher to execute an investigative process in a systematic way, consistent in each of its phases and with sufficient scientific evidence, to demonstrate that the findings reached were product of prolonged observation and interaction with the object of study and later, the execution of objective analysis and with reflective awareness to try to understand, interpret and communicate social realities.
From this perspective, it seems unquestionable the fundamental role that the qualitative researcher must fulfill since, through their qualities and capacities, they must be close enough to feel what the participants feel about the reality studied but at the same time, remain distant so as not to contaminate with your own experience, the findings of your research.
Along this coincident line, I find Patton (2001), cited by Arias and Giraldo (ob. Cit.), Who states: “The credibility of qualitative methods is based on skills; the competence and rigor of the person doing the field work ”(p. 507). In short, the ability of the qualitative researcher during the development of the research is transcendental, but in the data collection phase it is an essential aspect for the construction of the required criteria of scientific rigor. Another factor of special importance for the issue of validity is the researcher's ability to interpret the phenomena studied. In other words,It is about the application of the hermeneutical technique to try to extract the truth from the entire conglomerate of findings obtained during the field work.
But this interpretive perspective can generate controversy since all the information about the phenomenon studied is processed through the researcher. In this regard, Moral (2006) considers: “This« interpretive »element that characterizes qualitative research gives it great complexity, especially when it is considered that by carrying out this interpretive practice we can transform the world into a series of personal and biased representations” (p. 149).
That is why the qualitative researcher must develop his work with objectivity, integrity and professionalism, to present a genuine vision about the phenomenon studied, as a result of the dialogic processes carried out with the participants as well as the observation of their behaviors or when examining documents related, avoiding at all times biasing the information collected with their own vision of the matter.
In this context, one way to justify the interpretive perspective is to use the triangulation technique (as a measure of internal validity), in which comparisons are made between the versions provided by the various social actors, as well as those expressed by different expert theorists in the subject studied and, of course, the interpretive opinions of the researcher. These considerations lead us to the ethical aspect of scientific research.
Today ethics is immersed in all aspects of society, because through it, citizen coexistence can be developed and activities carried out in any social sphere, without threatening the individual or collective guarantees of human groups or of any being living and even nature itself.
This is how ethics should be (and is), implicit in the execution of all scientific process and of course, in the qualitative research model. In this regard, Arias and Giraldo (ob. Cit.), Reflect on noting that: "The qualitative vision recognizes the role of values and the ideologically mediated character of the knowledge process and ascribes ethics in the research process" (p. 509).
Therefore, with this level of progress that the qualitative model has, it is not enough to implement informed consent or maintain the confidentiality of the participants. In this 21st century, when social research is on the rise, a larger ethical commitment is required to continue to legitimize itself as the most appropriate research paradigm to understand or transform our social reality.
So I consider it appropriate and in total harmony with the strengthening of rigorous criteria in qualitative research, the proposal of González (2002), who proposes a model for the evaluation of ethical aspects in qualitative research. Here is a synthesis.
- Social or scientific value. Research must represent importance to society, proposing solutions that generate the welfare of the population or the production of knowledge that leads to solving their problems. Scientific validity. It has to do with the approach of clear purposes, application of a research method consistent with the phenomenon to be studied and social need, with the selection of subjects, instruments and the relationships established by the researcher with people. Equitable selection of subjects. Ensure that participants are chosen for reasons related to scientific questions. Favorable risk-benefit ratio. Fully justify that the benefits of research are higher than the risks it entails. Conditions for authentic dialogue.Encourage and guarantee the spontaneous dialogue of the participants, avoiding forcing them to take positions that do not express their own cultural identity. The dialogic processes will allow to build the orientation of the interests of the group. Independent evaluation. It is the objective orientation that the researcher must seek on the information collected, to avoid its influence on the results resulting from their own judgments. Informed consent. The researcher must ensure that the research participants do so voluntarily and with sufficient knowledge to decide responsibly about themselves. Another aspect is related to their participation in the work being compatible with their values, interests and preferences. Respect for the registered subjects. This respect implies several things:allow the participant to change their mind or decide whether the research is in line with their interests or not. In this case, you can withdraw without receiving any sanction. Another aspect is related to the reservation in the handling of information. Also, implement a mechanism to inform participants about the results and what was learned from the research. Lastly, the well-being and safety of the participant must prevail throughout the investigation (p. 98).on the results and on what was learned from the research. Finally, the well-being and safety of the participant must prevail throughout the investigation (p. 98).on the results and on what was learned from the research. Lastly, the well-being and safety of the participant must prevail throughout the investigation (p. 98).
In light of the above, I have been able to realize that there are multiple ways of constructing the validity of scientific research. In fact, each researcher who develops her investigative work, assumes the way of examining and substantiating the validity, based on the recommendations from the numerous bibliography in this regard and in accordance with the research design, methodological technique used and capacity of the researcher.
Another consideration of interest that I could observe in the documentary review is that the controversy still persists between the qualitative and quantitative research models, which covers the issue of scientific rigor, observing some criticisms of the ways of presenting the validity of research in one or the other model.
Regarding the documentary review, it is essential for an investigative work to have sufficient and quality reference sources to contribute positively to the construction of its validity.
Finally, as a researcher, always in search of generating knowledge, I conceived the orientation of the essay towards the presentation in a generalized way, of the importance that the rigor and depth of the epistemological, methodological, argumentative and ethical aspects have during the development of the work of research, which by themselves provide the scientific foundation and consequently its validity and universal legitimacy, since they meet irrefutable criteria for the production of knowledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
- Álvarez-Gayou, JL (2003). How to do qualitative research. Fundamentals and methodology. Basic methods. Ed. Paidós. Mexico Arias, M., Giraldo, C. (2011). Scientific rigor in qualitative research. Nursing research and education journal. Vol. 29, no. 3, October-December, pp. 500-514. University of Antioquia. Colombia.. Available: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=105222406020. Concha, V., Barriga, O. and Henríquez, G. (2011). The concepts of validity in social research and its pedagogical approach. Latin American Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences. Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 91-111.. Available: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3986633. Morales, M. (2006). Validity criteria in current qualitative research. Journal of educational research. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 147-164.Interuniversity Association for Pedagogical Research. Spain. Available: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=283321886008. González, M. (2002). Ethical aspects of qualitative research. Ibero-American Journal of Education. Vol. 29, pp. 85-103..
