Research quality

!

Research quality refers to a set of criteria that, to some extent, assure the quality of the study. Validity and reliability measure how well the research corresponds with the assumed truth (Kirk and Miller 1986, 29-30), and how well the method measures the object of the study (Kirk and Miller 1986, 41-42). Objectivity of the study deals with the question whether the purposes and aims of the study guide the process instead of the researcher’s or other parties’ subjective means (Patton 1991, 54-55). Credibility of the study requires a stance of neutrality with regard to the object under study (Patton 1991, 55). Transferability of the study demands openness of the sources and ability of others to effortlessly revise the references and sources of the information and lastly dependability measures how trustworthy and applicable the research is in its own context and, further, in the context of other studies.

3.2.1 Validity and Reliability

As already mentioned, “the validity and reliability of qualitative data depend to a great extent on the methodological skill, sensitivity, and integrity of the researcher”

(Patton 1991, 11). Since the object of this study, cultural integration, is complex and multidimensional it easily affects the nature of the validity and reliability of the study.

Obviously validity and reliability are unnegotiable elements and criteria of the

research but once again much relies on the skills and qualities of the researcher.

Validity could be explained as the skill of the researcher to interpret and further develop consistent parts that reveal something important about the object of the research. This demands criticism and sensitivity towards the embedded clues and hints. As Patton concludes: it is important that the researcher does not pretend that all the information is equal. Instead, the researcher should be able to make judgements that provide clues to further develop the research, see “clear” patterns and understand what it means when the facts are strongly supported by the data (Patton 1991, 431).

Then again, it is equally important for the researcher to give up some findings if they seem to be out of context or irrelevant. The researcher is supposed to do this kind of evaluation throughout the project, be able to create theory that is coherent, ask important follow-up questions ad hoc in the middle of the interview and be able to abandon weak and false presumptions.

Validity can be examined on at least in three different levels (Hirsjärvi and Hurme 2009, 188-187). These are the levels of predictive validity, structure validity, and the validity of the research settings. Predictive validity means that based on this research the next research undertaken with the same variables would get the same results.

Structure validity refers to the original question of validity, in other words, whether the research measures and studies the object it claims to be studying. Predominantly this is a question of interpretation and structure: do the research questions reflect the topic under research? Study setting validity has four parts (Hirsjärvi and Hurme 2009, 187 [from Cook and Campell 1979]): structure validity was already discussed, and the other three parts are statistical validity, inner validity, and external validity.

The question of reliability of the study is focused on the methodological means the study applies: whether the qualitative interview in this case measures reliably the object of the study and whether or not there are significant weaknesses with the method related to the object of the study. In that case the method would have to be reconsidered. Reliability in the context of a qualitative interview might be examined by asking if the result would be same when interviewing the same interviewee again and whether or not another researcher would receive the same result with the same settings, interviewees, and questions. Once again we are reminded that the culture as a phenomenon under study is suitable to be studied both quantitatively and

qualitatively. On one hand qualitative interviews might provide us with embedded information that we would be unable to get by using quantitative means, on the other hand there are risks, mentioned before, when working with the qualitative interviews:

the small simple size will not give us information applicable to the whole group of Chinese professionals working in Finnish companies and the result of the study may be weak since it might be that cultural integration is extremely hard to study by asking the employees themselves. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind the possibilities of the qualitative study (Patton 1991; Rubin and Rubin 2012) and acknowledge beforehand the challenges related to the method.

3.2.2 Objectivity

The loss of objectivity is perhaps the most severe and common accusation against which the qualitative tradition must defend itself. The fact that the research process lies in the hands of a subjective interpreter and the results are produced and thought through by an individual mind soon points out the vulnerability of qualitative research. Patton remarks that right there, in the debate of the objectivity and subjectivity of the study is the ideological ammunition in the paradigms debate (Patton 1991, 55). Since the ideals of absolute objectivity and value-free science are more or less impossible to obtain in practice, Patton suggests a criteria of neutrality, which refers to researchers’ skills and responsibility to understand the world as it is, including all the paradoxes and complexities it holds, reporting both confirming and disconfirming evidence (Patton 1991, 55).

3.2.3 Credibility, transferability, and dependability

Credibility in the context of qualitative interviews means that the researcher has interviewed people who are informed or genuinely know about the issue at hand. In this study, building up credibility is not a challenge since interviewing Chinese employees on their company’s premises is quite sufficient proof for their credibility.

However, as Rubin and Rubin (2012, 65) point out, in cultural groups most of the members should be able to provide the researcher with information but most will not be experienced enough to communicate the cultural knowledge they have and for this reason it is important to look for “encultured informants” who know the culture well

enough but can also conceptualize it to the researcher. According to Patton (1991, 461) the credibility issue for qualitative inquiry depends on three distinct but inter-related elements. First, rigorous techniques and methods for the gathering of high-quality data, which should be carefully analysed, with attention to the aspects of validity, reliability, and triangulation; second, the credibility of the researcher, which is dependent on education, experience and personal-vocational skills; and third, the philosophical belief in the phenomenological paradigm, that is genuine appreciation of the naturalistic inquiry, qualitative methods and holistic thinking.