In Maxwell’s chapter on validity he uses the definition “the correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account” (page 122).

One point that he stresses is that validity, “is not a commodity that can be purchased with techniques” (Brinberg and McGrath, 1985) meaning that the validity of your research isn’t based on the methods that you used.  Rather, validity depends on how your conclusions relate to reality- validity is a relative concept.  Simply put, validity is proven through evidence, not methods (page 121).

The purpose of proving validity is to answer the question, “Why should we believe it?” about your research.  Validity doesn’t necessarily prove that your research is the ultimate truth about phenomena, but it gives people reading it a reason to believe that your research is credible (page 122).

Maxwell next explains a key concept for validity- the validity threat which is essentially a way that you might be wrong.  A validity threat is therefore an alternative explanation, interpretation or conclusion than the one you have put forth (a “rival hypothesis”).  For example:
-The people you interviewed aren’t presenting their actual views
-You have ignored data that didn’t fit your interpretation
-There is a different theoretical way of making sense
Validity manes that you are conceptualizing these threats, acknowledging them, using different strategies to discover if they impacted your research, and dealing with them (page 123).

While quantitative researchers can often use manipulations or controls to deal with validity concerns prior to conducting their research, qualitative researchers have to address most of their validity threats after the research has begun (page 123).

It’s important when we’re writing our proposals that we don’t just stick in a bunch of terms relating to validity like “triangulation” and “bracketing” but that we actually demonstrate that we’ve thought these issues through and thoughts about how we will deal with them in regards to our specific research (page 123).

Next Maxwell went into the two types of threats to validity that are most common in qualitative studies: researcher bias and reactivity.

Researcher Bias: Maxwell defines this as “the selection of data that fit the researcher’s existing theory, goals, or preconceptions, and the selection of data that “stand out” to the researcher.” We have already talked about the fact that we can’t completely eliminate our theories, beliefs and perceptual lenses as researchers.  However, in our proposals when we are discussing validity we should explain our possible biases and how we will deal with them during our research (page 124).

Reactivity: Maxwell defines this as “the influence of the researcher on the setting or individuals studied.”  Again, eliminating the actual influence of the researchers is impossible but what’s important is understanding how you are influencing the situation.  An interesting point is that in natural settings an observer isn’t as likely to influence participants’ behavior as in an interview setting (known as reflexivity) (page 125).

Validity Tests: on pages 126-130 Maxwell provides a checklist for some of the most important strategies that can be used to attempt to guarantee validity. Page 126, lists other authors that have compiled more extensive lists on the same subject.

– Intensive, Long-term Involvement
– Rich Data
– Respondent Validation
– Intervention
– Searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases
– traingualation- collecting info from a diverse range of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods.
-Numbers
– Comparison

From pages 130-134 there is a very important table- the Validity Matrix for a study that is a great reference point for any study you will be interested in conducting.

Questioning the research design’s validity is a systemic application process to approach research questions (John Platt, 1973). The researcher should first devise alternative hypotheses and “think about all the ways a given conclusions could be wrong” (p. 135). This is important because it allows the research to infer knowledge from the research and to understand the data from all angles. Next, the researcher should integrate and address validity threats in all aspects of the research design. Finally, to identify strategies for validity threats, the researcher should refer to to Maxwell (2004) Using Qualitative Methods for Casual Explanation and Qualitative Research Design (2005).

It would be an excellent idea to complete Exercise 6.1 (p. 136), a companion to Memo 6.1 and the matrix, Figure 6.1. This exercise will help the researcher to identify and deal with validity threats present in their study. It’s certainly worth a look.

Finally, when discussing validity, generalization must be mentioned (p.136-138). Maxwell directs the reader to Polit & Beck (2010). Generalization “refers to extending research results, conclusions, or other accounts that are based on a study of particular individuals, settings, times, or institutions to other individuals, settings, times, or institutions than those directly studied”. There are two kinds of generalization: internal, and external. An in-depth explanation can be found on p. 137.

It is also important to mention Becker (1991) when discussing generalization of qualitative research. Becker states that “generalizations are … about a process, the same no matter where it occurs, in which variations in conditions create variations in results. Qualitative research also lends itself to “face generalization”, which, according to statistician Judith Singer, means that there is no obvious reason not to believe that the results can be applied more generally.