 Hello, I welcome you all once again to my channel, Explore Education and I am Dr. Rashmi Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Education, S.S. Kharna Ghals Trivi College, University of Lahabad. And we are nowadays discussing topics under the theme of qualitative research methodology. Earlier, we have discussed positivist versus naturalistic paradigm and today I am going to discuss evaluative criteria in qualitative research, okay? And the lecture will be in bilingual in mode and will be very useful for your research purposes and various other competitive examinations too. So, do subscribe my channel too. Let's start. First of all, the first and most important thing is that whenever qualitative research is compared to quantitative research or the people who believe in positivist school, the quantitative event of mind in whose research, they say that qualitative research, since it is not systematic, it is not pre-planned, it is not done by you, so they say that it cannot be generalized, it cannot be predicted, it cannot be controlled by any other thing. So, it is not research itself. It does not have any experience when it is generalised on a large population. In this way, you can say that it takes out the disadvantages of critiques. So, whether it is said or thought or whether it is known or something is tried, how to set the criteria of qualitative research that we evaluate it as well, it is a good research. In quantitative, we say that it is a norm set of reliability, validity, it is an objectivity, it is a norm set, so it is a good research. But what should be done in qualitative? So, Lincoln Guba, who has written his book on naturalistic inquiry and he has done a lot of work on it, he has told us some terms, alternative, that you decide on them and you can also say that your qualitative research is a good research. So, let's see, for the positivist paradigm of inquiry, the axiomatic assumptions call for cause and effect. Okay, because the positivistic approach is a quantitative approach. We look for cause and effect in the quantitative approach. Cause and effect means, what are the reasons for which it is affecting? So, let's see, there are two variables, what is the effect of one chart on the other? So, what can we do? We can do the prediction, we can control it, You can control and control the results. So, to qualify as a Disciplined Inquiry, if we want to qualify in the Disciplined Inquiry, so what will be? Positivist paradigm requires exploring the truth value of the Positivist paradigm requires the internal validity, its applicability. Applicability means you can apply it, it means generalisability, then consistency, results are coming consistently, it means reliability and its neutrality. So there are four criteria for internal validity and external validity, which is generalizability. Reliability and objectivity. The one that determines how good research is in the positive paradigm. So these four well known criteria form the fundamental basis for testing the rigor of from the fundamental basis for testing the rigor of inquiring these positivistic paradigms. So, what does naturalistic inquiry do? Naturalistic inquiry can also qualify as a disciplined inquiry through, though in this case, its underpinning assumptions call for different criteria. You can also say that this is a disciplined inquiry. This can also be a good result if it is a different criteria. Because our assumption is different, our goal is different. So, they have told four analogues. Two positivist criteria. What can we set in terms of quantitative research in terms of qualitative? They said that the meaning of internal validity is truthfulness. So, for that, the term is credibility. How credible is your research? Then, the meaning of external validity is generalizability. For that, the term is transferability. That is, how much research can be transferred in similar conditions or similar situations. Reliability means that you are not sure of consistency of scores. That is, how much you can depend on the outcome of your research. So, the term is given for reliability, dependability. And the term is given for objectivity, confirmability. So, these four analogues constitute the criteria of transportiness parallel to the term rigor in the positivist sense. In the positivist sense, in the naturalistic sense, you can talk about credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. That's what Lincoln and Gooba told us. What else did they tell us? They said that they are establishing trustworthiness. We can establish that our results are trustworthiness. You can't call it useless. You can't call it anything. Lincoln and Gooba created stringent criteria in qualitative research. They also set its criteria. We have already mentioned credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. This is referred to in this article as the four-dimensions criteria. You know, they named it as four-dimensions criteria. And trustworthiness is achieved by... They are saying that we can make our research trustworthy if we make it credible, dependable, confirmable and transferable. Instead of using the word validation, they are not using the word validity. Because our research is not quantitative. They are saying that they classified these criteria into primary and secondary criteria. They divide them into primary and secondary criteria. What is the meaning of credibility? Are the results in accurate interpretation of the participants' meaning? What are we going to do? We are going to talk to the participants. We are going to get their meaning out of them. So, they are saying that are the results of the participants' meaning, their accurate interpretation, are they doing it? If they are doing it, then your results are credible. Your research is credible. Authenticity. Are different voices heard? Did you hear all the voices? Did you hear a voice? Did you hear a participant on the other side? Did you hear a researcher on the subject? So, is it authentic or not? Criticality. Is there a critical appraisal of all aspects of the research? Are all of them critical or not? Integrity. Are the investigators self-critical? I mean, what is self-critical? We have paid attention to our integrity. We are going to impose our views everywhere. Okay. Alternative terminology. We are getting it. Internal validity, which is truthfulness. Internal validity, which is truthfulness, is termed as credibility. External validity, which is generalizability, is termed as transferability. Reliability, which is not reliable, is termed as dependability. Objectivity, which is termed as confirmability. So, we have to remember this. What is this? Traditional criteria for judging quantitative research. That is, the traditional criteria for judging quantitative research. And this is the alternative criteria for judging qualitative research. You can check our credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. And make our research trustworthy. We cannot say that we have not done research, or that we have not taken anything out of it. There is no outcome. There is no utility to it. Okay. Then there are meanings. What do they mean? Creswell and Ford have said in 2013, credibility means confidence in truth of the finance. I mean, what has come out of it is how confident it is. This is credibility or internal validity or truthfulness. Transferability. Showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts. What is this? External criteria. External validity or generalizability. What is this? The findings that have come out, can be used in other contexts. Then, dependability means reliability. Showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated. Meaning, the findings are almost consistent. You can repeat it. What is this? Dependability. And confirmability is a degree of neutrality or the extent to be the findings of a study or shape by respondents and not researcher bias, motivation or interest. Look, this is a very delicate balancing in qualitative research. The researcher's bias doesn't have to come and the researcher has to be included. The researcher doesn't have to be detached nor does the researcher have to impose their views. So, this is confirmability. What does quantitative research have to do with objectivity? The concept of confirmability is the qualitative investigators comparable concern to objectivity. So, this is clear what is the term of this term and what is the meaning of this term. Then, how do we establish how do we establish credibility? How do we establish dependability? How do we establish confirmability? How do we establish transferability? There are techniques for this. For example, if we want our research to be credible, meaning, we need to be truthful and believe in the findings. So, what should we do? Prolonged engagement. The first technique they have told us is that you shouldn't just go away and talk to someone, you have to be engaged for a long period of time. You have to get in touch with someone repeatedly. You have to ask questions, there is a negotiated outcome, there is a member checking. You have to do analysis again and again. You have to collect data, collect information, collect data, and the reaction is going on both sides. Then, persistent observation sometimes means you have to be careful. Then you will realize whether you did the right thing Triangulation is used a lot. Triangulation means that it is not like you are interviewing. So you just interviewed and left. You write transcripts from them. You also do participant observation. You also do non-participant observation. You also make a part of focus book discussion. I mean, we will use many types of methodology, many types of data collection method. Then we will have belief, we will have faith that what we have removed is right. So this is triangulation. What is peer debriefing? We will debrief our results, our analysis, our data collection. What type of peer-goot is not a part of that research? If it is not a part of that research, then it will see it in a different objective way. Because we are involved in it again and again that we do not want bias. Which is called confirmation bias. Then negative case analysis. Suppose we talked to 10 people. 9 people's views are almost the same. But the 10th case is the most different. So we have to do analysis of that case in a very good way. Rather, the researcher is in search of a different view. It is not that we have to leave it. If it is like 10-9-1, then we have to remove it and take it and leave it. We do not have to do that. Okay. Then member checking. Participant of the validation is also called respondent validation. That is, we talked to the member, we did data analysis, we took a report. We go to the member again and say that you gave us the data, you talked to us. This was your meaning and it had no other meaning. So it is validated by respondent, it is validated by the participant. So if we do this, then obviously we will get faith, belief and truthfulness in our findings. Then what is the technique of transferability? That is, in a similar situation, you can apply your research. Thick description means the more it can be, the more it has to be written. No one should touch it. Term was invented by social anthropologists Gilbert Ryle and Gifford Goods. You know, in their term, what does it mean? The goal is not just to describe a situation. We do not have to describe a situation. We do not have to do it. But also add details. We have to add all kinds of details so that readers understand the significant and complex cultural meanings underpinning any observable scenario. So that the reader, the layman, who is going to read the whole scenario, the description must be always thick so that it can be transferable to other situations too. Then dependability, how can we assume that it can be consistent? We can do it reliably. Inquiry audit. It involves having a researcher outside of the data collection and data analysis examining the processes of data collection, data analysis, and the results of the research study. What we have to do is discuss it with other researchers. This is something like peer debriefing. Inquiry audit. We have done the auditing of the inquiry, whether we have done it right or not. So the second researcher is data collection, data analysis, and results. If we have done it right, we will understand whether we are making a mistake. Okay. Then techniques for establishing conformability. So conformability means objectivity. We feel that we have received it objectively. We have achieved it. So conformability audit. That is, we have confirmed it from the other side whether it is right or not. Audit trial. That is, transparent description of the researchers. The way we have done it, we have written a transparent description so that the other person can read it and understand it. Triangulation means that we should use many methods of data collection, data analysis so that if something is missing from one, it can be covered up from another. And reflexivity. Reflexivity means that we have to include our bias and detach our bias from the research process. And we have to believe that researchers can't be objective and qualitative research. That will be subjective. It will be self-aware. So we need acceptance of that. It requires the general acceptance of the fact that researchers are dynamic parts of the qualitative process and actively influence the outcome of the project. That is, we are influencing the outcome of our project. It is not that we want to be detached and just research with standardized instruments. These are the techniques of qualitative research. How to establish trustworthiness. But there was a problem. What was the problem? The critics said, what did you do? You made a parameter with quantitative research. That this is in this, this is in this, this is in this. This means that both are more or less the same. So why are you taking different assumptions? This also comes out. Then Lincoln and Guba took out the second criteria of authentication. Okay, we'll tell you. This is the parameter of trustworthiness. Is our research authentic or not? They took out different parameters for that. They are saying that it should be fair. It should be ontological authentication. It should be educational authentication. It should be catalytic authentication. It should be tactical authentication. Fairness means identifying, presenting, clarifying and honoring in a balanced way the various multiple constructions and value positions that exist in a given context. What will be our research? Fair. Then ontological authentication means whether or not there is an improvement in the individuals and groups' conscious experience of the world. That is to say, what is our purpose? We want to improve something or the other. So the individual or the group's conscious experience has no improvement in the world's procedures. It has no improvement in the world's procedures. Educative authentication means where the participants achieve increased understanding of the constructions which surround them. Should the participants have this or not? Should the surrounding people understand it? Should the understanding of it increase? Then catalytic authentication means facilitation and simulation of action. Is that action stimulated or not? Tactical authentication means that ability to actually understand the constructions Tactical authentication means that ability to actually act towards change and to be empowered politically and educational. That is to say, should we go towards change or not? Should we be empowered or not? That is to say, if your qualitative research is fulfilling such criteria then according to Lincoln and Guba, your research is authentic. Okay? So in this way, this is a very big problem, a very big struggle, a very big struggle to be able to show such qualitative research on trustworthy and authentic. We can say that we have done research, no one can say that you have just brought something from your heart. Okay? So if you understand this, it will be very useful for you. So thank you and don't forget to like and subscribe my channel, Explore Education. Join me on Telegram Group 2. Okay? Done from myself.