 Hello. I welcome you all once again to my channel Explore Education. I am Dr. Rashmi Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Assistant Kanna Girls Relief College, University of Kalahabad. And this time I am going, I am discussing with you all the criteria of qualitative research in which I have already discussed the reflexivity in qualitative research and in, and this time I am going to discuss authenticity in qualitative research. Okay. So, let's start qualitative research. Qualitative research is not at all a research because you are not at all systematic, you are not predetermined anything and you are not experimenting, you are not testing hypothesis and all. So, in this way, all of us talk about it that you are not making any imagination in it, you are not doing any test in it, you are not putting any stats in it. You have not chosen the sample as representative and you are not pre-planned in it. Everything has not been done before that you are going to tell the level of the students and you are not telling them that you are not doing anything at all, so you are not experimenting. So, when this is done, when it is done, so Lincoln, by the way, many people take the name, but Lincoln, Gubak Pitta is very good to understand qualitative research and they talk about it term trustworthiness. They said that no, it is not like that, qualitative research is also research, you can consider it as trustworthiness. But here the criteria of evaluation is different from quantitative. So, we will talk about trustworthiness and we will talk about how authenticity is connected to trustworthiness. And it is also in your course, it is asked that what are the criteria of qualitative research, you have to tell you all this, authenticity, reflexivity, other than that, community, voice, sacredness, all these are the points. So, let's start with trustworthiness, how can we tell you that quality is not certain, you can trust, you are worthy of trust. So, he is saying that establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research involves demonstrating, he said, I mean, Lincoln Gubak proposed to us that they did not give us four words, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. He is saying that quantitative research requires, you can decide these four things in qualitative research, you can map them, you can set them up, you can consider them as a map dand, whether your research is credible or not, is it transferable or not, you can depend on it, you can depend on it or not, and you can confirm it or not. According to everyone, quantitative criteria have been given a shear terminology, which has been given credibility for internal validity, external validity, external validity, that is, you can generalize the result, that is, you can transfer it in qualitative, which is your report, signing, finding, signing. Dependability in preference to reliability, that is, like in quantitative, you are reliable, reliable, 2 lakhs, your consistency of scores, it is coming again and again, similarly, in qualitative, it has been given a shear term, dependability, and confirmability has been given a shear term of objectivity, if you are a person, you can confirm it, you can give it with so much effort, so we do not have these four terminology. Despite these alternative criteria, these alternative criteria, if you look at the credibility of internal validity, external validity, generalizability, transferability, sorry, reliability, dependability, and confirmability instead of objectivity. So, despite these alternative criteria, the model given by Jood, Lincoln and Guba, it had to be considered a lot, and one of them was to be considered an ethical argument. Look, the sacredness that you have in your course, and the ethical guidelines, the ethical issues, they emerge in qualitative research, you can say that qualitative research is more important, you need to pay more attention to them, why? In qualitative, you are not raising any ethical issue, we have not asked you for anything that involves ethics and don'ts, you are not getting any sentiments. How many times have you gone there, how many times do you go there, what is your course, I mean, you are asking factual things, there is no ethics involved. But in qualitative, you are talking about its relationships, its experiences, its words, its meaning making, its culture, its environment, and you are taking that data out of it, which may not be comfortable to share, you can say that it is not comfortable, sometimes it is. So, it is also said that you should not leave anyone's mind, if you have left it, then it is your job to settle it down. So, these ethical issues emerge in qualitative research, because there are such relationships, such explorations, such theory of emergence, which is not quantitative. So, apart from these alternative criteria, for an ethical argument, these criteria are still less, there should be something else. The trustworthiness of a qualitative study needs to be judged. They said that you, the trustworthiness of a human soul, should also know how much you can use it. It is done about research participants. The research you are talking about, we will keep the data confidential, we will only use it for research purposes. We will not use anyone's name. These are all ethical consent. So, how much ethical are you against research participants, Adults, stakeholders, and scientific community, you should be in the trustworthiness criteria. It was in response to these criticisms, i.e. in the context of these arguments, Linker and Guba also combined the fifth criteria. And what was the fifth criteria? It was authenticity, which can be called pramanikta, to more clearly distinguish these principles from positivistic ones. Positivistic means experimental, scientific, post-positivistic means naturalistic or qualitative. In this regard, I have also discussed the difference between positivistic and post-positivistic paradigms. So, the new criteria of authenticity of Linker and Guba combined the fifth criteria which we will discuss later was developed by constructivist tradition. What is constructivist tradition? What is pramanikta? It is that knowledge is relative to time and place. These qualitative ones say that time and place is not expected that today we are saying something in front of someone, why time and place has changed we are talking to it how will you judge what is right and what is wrong. So, in this way, the things that are in the qualitative research, they said that five are the facts and they were based on this that knowledge is relative to time and place. Subjective meanings matter which keeps the quantitative subject completely away. They say that you have to be objective and not to be included in your self-host and the qualitative ones say that self-detach cannot work. And that truth is a matter of consensus among informed and sophisticated constructors. They said that truth is a consensus we are making a birth and there are two criteria which Lincoln and Goomba told before. Credibility, Confirmability, Dependability and Transparenability. Credibility, Internal Validity Confirmability, Objectivity Dependability, Reliability and Transparenability for External Validity or Generalization. Questions that underpin the principles of qualitative research how can we be the truth of the findings. We can say with confidence that we have made it right. Confirmability, how can we be certain that the findings have been determined by the subjects and context of the inquiry rather than the biases, motivations and perspectives of the investigator. How can we be sure that what is coming out is coming out because of the subject or the context of the investigator. Dependability would the findings be repeated if the inquiry were replicated with the same or similar objects in the same or similar context. They are saying that if we are repeating the inquiry of one or more subjects then the findings will be repeated. In Transparenability we apply these findings to other contexts and groups of people. The findings can be made in the same way. Okay This is generalization. Later they made an authenticity that have people being changed by the process. What extent the investigation is prompt action. This is another extension of trustworthiness authenticity which states how many people are changing from the process. Your quantitative research We need to tell the truth in a quantitative way. So, when you are talking in a qualitative way, you are negotiating, you are coming to a level, you are exploring, you are studying in-depth from the inside, then you should also find out how people have been changed. After that, how people have changed, to what extent your investigation has made someone responsible for some work. So, what is authenticity? Fondator has said that authenticity is an extension of the trustworthiness criteria. The trustworthiness criteria, conformability, credibility, dependability and transferability are the same. Because it enables questions to be asked about how interpretations are made and how this process has evolved. Indeed, the authenticity principle recognises that inquiry and understanding are a process of learning, changing, negotiating and ultimately acting. He is saying that the authenticity principle recognises that the research you are doing is a process of learning, changing, reaching the limit and ultimately acting. It is a process of acting. For the authenticity principle, the evaluation research should recognise and promote the diversity of the value systems and people's constructions of the world which change constantly as people interact with the run-in. Authenticity principle says that we are trying to see that the diversity value systems of the world are different from the values of everyone in the world. The values that are different from the values of everyone in the world are the people's constructions of the world. The way we respect our world and interact with each other, we have to promote that value system and recognise it. Therefore, the principle takes into account the process of forming interpretations from the value point of respondents. What do we do? The respondents with whom we are responding, the data we give, what is the principle according to that we will interpret with you. We will respect their voice, respect their diversity. They are positioning and empowerment towards the respondents in themselves. What do I think of the other participants? What do I think of myself? In this process, research participants as well as researchers learn to respect each other. If you do this, what happens is that we respect each other to see the issues from different perspectives. Why? Because from the angle, from the perspective, we are able to see the issues. We are able to see the issues. And constantly negotiate the constructions of the world. And in this way, they try to make an effort to reach the truth. Based on the constructivist epistemology, the main drive for the authenticity principle is to negotiate. If we are talking about the knowledge of Sandrachnawadi, which is based on our qualitative research, they are saying that who is the main driver of the main drive? This is the courage. Negotiation of constructs and values which Sandrachna has which is coming out, which is constructed, which is the principle, which we have to get through negotiation. This is the area which authenticity is. The fear is the extent to which all the competing constructions have been exposed and taken into account in the evaluation report, that is the negotiated, the emergent constructions. Fear is the point which you should take from everyone. And then ontological authenticity we know from the philosophy that it is about being and world. constructions have become more informed and sophisticated. It is said that the individual who has constructed has become more informed and sophisticated. In other words, according to the world, our construction is more informed and sophisticated. It is said that we should consider this. Educative authenticity means that we are paying attention to what other people are thinking. The extent to which individuals have become more understanding is increasing in our understanding. Even if not more tolerant. Even if we are not very sensual, we are more understanding of the constructions of others. We are paying attention to what other people are thinking. What is the meaning for them? What is the construction for them? And the meaning of catalytic authenticity means that the extent to which action clarifying the focus at issue, moving to eliminate or ameliorate problems like improving or eliminating problems, sharpening values are stimulated and facilitated by devaluation. What is the meaning of catalytic authenticity? What is the meaning of catalytic authenticity? It means increasing. I am saying stimulated and facilitated. So, it is stimulated and it is being developed. And the meaning of tactical authenticity is the extent to which individuals are empowered to take the action that the evaluation implies or proposes. What is the meaning of evaluation? The things that are coming out, that can be imaged or proposed. So, fairness is to be fair. Negotiation is to be the point. Ontological authenticity is to be focused on individual construction. Educative authenticity is to be focused on people's constructions. Concentration is to be focused on individual constructions. Educational authenticity We have to pay attention to people's constructions. Catalytic authenticity means that you have to increase the extent to which action is stimulated and facilitated by the evolution. The root of that is the tactical authenticity, which means that we have to empower the individual so much that they can take action. So this is what we have written. It is an explanation of the first dimension of fairness, which involves a core dimension of balance. We will allow construction and value structures. What is in the second two dimensions is that we have to experience the conscious experiences of the world. The second dimension of ontological authenticity captures the way that experience affects the research participants own understanding. In Educative Authenticity, we have to look at other people's understanding and how to construct them. In the third dimension, we have to look at education, not only their own understanding of the changes, but also the appreciation of how others view the world. In the fourth dimension, we have to look at catalytic, which is defined as the extent to which action is stimulated and facilitated by the evolution. In Tactical Authenticity, we have to look at the extent to which individuals are in fact empowered to take action. Here, the text form is written. So when you will go looking for authenticity, you will not get any matter or understanding of what it is written. So this is the first dimension of understanding that qualitative research is based on. The experimental thinking people who believe in scientific things, do not believe in qualitative research. So how can we judge on one criteria? We have a new criteria according to your criteria. So trustworthiness was talked about. Credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Even then we were not able to think about it. This is the fifth extension of trustworthiness. It is linked to the authenticity of Guba. How important is it? How much you are studying it? Is there any action? Is there any empowerment? How many ethical issues are kept in mind? While doing qualitative research, all these things are there. And authenticity is also mentioned. There is fairness, ontological, educative, catalytic, tactical. So this is all there. So to understand it, you have a matter. I think now. So in this way I have completed two basic criteria of qualitative research. First one is a reflexivity and second one is authenticity. So thank you and don't forget to like and subscribe my channel Explore Education. I have done from my side.