The concepts of validity and reliability are usually associated with the positivist research tradition, whereas in constructivist research, trustworthiness is the criterion of good research (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).
I shall therefore discuss the trustworthiness of this study. I mostly draw on Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) seminal framework (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) to evaluate the quality of this research. It was Lincoln and Guba (1985, in Eriksson
& Kovalainen, 2008) who replaced the concepts of reliability and validity with the parallel concept of ‘trustworthiness’, which contains four aspects on which to evaluate qualitative research: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.
Credibility is concerned with whether the researcher has made strong, logical links between observations and the categories of their own interpretation.
It is also related to the question of whether researchers are familiar enough with the topic and whether the data are sufficient to merit the claims the researcher makes. Credibility also looks at whether any other researcher has made comparable or similar interpretations or if they agree with the claims that have been presented (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). In this doctoral study, these questions of credibility are taken into consideration throughout the research process. Firstly, before any research material was collected, I familiarised myself with the phenomenon under investigation. Secondly, the research material collected in this doctoral study is different for each individual study, and its variety allowed me to analyse the phenomena in a range of different ways.
Thirdly, I have described my analysis process in detail in this introductory essay, so the analysis is described as transparently as possible. However, as Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011, 104) state, “we are shaped by our lived experiences, and these will always come out in the knowledge we generate as researchers and in the data generated by our subjects”. Hence, inevitably, my own experiences, interests and aims influence the knowledge generated and the interpretations made in this study. I cannot know if another researcher would have made the same interpretations if they had followed the same analysis process.
The active role of the researcher in the construction of knowledge should be acknowledged. This active role means that the results of this type of discourse analysis are not generalisable or universal. In order to try to reduce the personal bias that can slip in from the work of a single researcher – and in this case the concern is with my influence on the interpretations – I as one of the co-authors of these articles frequently discussed the findings with the other authors. Our discussions were reflexive all through the research process: we reflected on our understandings of the phenomenon, the analysis, and the conclusions of our analysis. I myself have maintained a reflexive approach during every step of this doctoral study. Reflexivity means that the researcher acknowledges the theories, values, experiences and politics that guide their research and makes these clear in the research article (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Hence, reflexivity is the process of critically reflecting on the self as a researcher (Guba & Lincoln, 1981;
Lincoln et al. 2011). When choosing my research problem, I identified my own interests in studying this specific phenomenon; one important reason for studying fatherhood in working life is to advance gender equality. This is not a hidden agenda in my research articles but, rather, an openly declared objective.
Reflexivity, for me, is that as a researcher I ask myself time after time why I am doing this research, for what purpose, and with what kinds of assumptions.
Transferability is concerned with the researcher’s responsibility to show the degree of similarity between their research, or parts of it, and other research, in order to establish some sort of connection between the research now being presented and previous results (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). In each research article, I have made an extensive literature review, in which I have then positioned my own research. In addition, in this introductory essay I have presented the broader field of study within which this doctoral study is situated.
However, earlier studies that can be linked to this doctoral study are not limited to one definite research field; rather, this study can be connected to different research fields. As Crespi and Ruspini (2016, 3) found, there has been no research on the complex intersection between ‘old’ and ‘new’ forms of masculinity and between fatherhood, work-life balance and gender relations. This doctoral study aims to link all these areas, as well as leadership studies. Consequently, there are not many studies that combine all the same research elements as I have brought together here.
Dependability is concerned with the researcher’s responsibility to offer the reader enough information to make the process of research logical, traceable and clearly documented (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). The process of analysis that I used for each article has been explained in detail and made explicit and open in this introductory essay. The dependability of this study is also increased by the fact that all three research articles were produced in collaboration with other researchers. Overall, my understanding of the importance of documenting the analysis process has increased during the writing of this doctoral thesis. Giving clear information about how the analysis proceeded has helped me answer questions from both co-writers and reviewers. However, when doing discourse analysis, especially macro-constructionist discourse analysis, the process is rarely linear, and this makes it less easy for others to follow.
Conformability means linking findings and interpretations to the material in ways that can be easily understood by others (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). In each research article I used some well-known and recognised methods of discourse analysis, which made it possible to consider the specific research questions in each research article. These methods guided me to link the interpretations with the material so that others can also follow the analysis. I have also tried to be as precise as possible in describing the analysis process. Finally, readers can judge the accuracy of the analysis from the quotes from the interviews and/or media texts that I have included in each article.
This doctoral study includes three published articles, all of which focus on fatherhood in working life from the perspective of leadership and management.
Each of the three articles is an independent empirical study, meaning that each article has its own research materials and process, as well as its own key aim.
This chapter summarises the main results of the articles. The main findings of the three studies are presented in Table 3.
TABLE 3 Summary of the main findings of the studies
Article Focus of the fatherhood mainly by drawing on the traditional masculine ideology, but some reconfiguration towards more involved fatherhood is also in progress.
Study 2: Encouragement to take paternity leave in the male-dominated organisational context; Flexibility for some employees and Top managers do not care, but supervisors do in the female-dominated
organisational context; In the hands of the leader and Good to be seen in the gender-balanced organisational context.
The gender composition of an organisation affects its leadership practices with regard to men’s work-family balance.
Article Focus of the
Two competing discourses: one of stasis (Working fathers—no time for caring), the other of change (Fatherhood in flux).
On the one hand, the media discourse on fatherhood in the organisational context is moving towards greater gender equality, but at the same time a strong counter-discourse puts a brake on such development, especially as it concerns management.