Description Assignment Instructions: Review the handout entitled “Chapter 4: Trustworthiness of the Data.” Create a one-page checklist to be used to evaluate the data to be collected from your selected method. Divide the checklist into the four criteria used to evaluate data trustworthiness from the handout. Under each of the four criteria, itemize at least three checks for data quality you will use to assess the final data set after data collection has closed. Length: 1 page References: Cite a minimum of 2 scholarly resources used to design the checklist 3 attachments Slide 1 of 3 attachment_1 attachment_1 attachment_2 attachment_2 attachment_3 attachment_3 UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW Trustworthiness In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation By: Demetri L. Morgan & Sharon M. Ravitch Edited by: Bruce B. Frey Book Title: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation Chapter Title: “Trustworthiness” Pub. Date: 2018 Access Date: December 27, 2019 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc. City: Thousand Oaks, Print ISBN: 9781506326153 Online ISBN: 9781506326139 DOI: Print pages: 1729-1731 © 2018 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book. SAGE SAGE Research Methods 2018 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. The term trustworthiness refers to an overarching concept used in qualitative research to convey the procedures researchers employ to ensure the quality, rigor, and credibility of a study while (re)establishing congruence of the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of the researcher with the design, implementation, and articulations of a research study. Hence, trustworthiness is both an aim and a practice. The trustworthiness section of a study typically asserts why the findings and implications can be viewed as acceptable and of worth to the reader by making the methodology and methods that undergird the study transparent. Transparency in the approach, implementation, and evaluation of a study enables consumers of the research to take important details into account when assessing the study’s value and utility. Thus, trustworthiness is relevant to educational research, measurement, and evaluation because the related procedures are a key task qualitative researchers must respond to in the execution of a research project. Despite this, the role of trustworthiness in qualitative research is an unsettled paradigmatic debate because of the concept’s overlap with the positivist notion of “validity,” the cornucopia of approaches involved when seeking trustworthiness, and the lack of standardization on how to best judge the effectiveness of trustworthiness across different fields and disciplines. This entry first overviews the epistemological and ontological roots of trustworthiness and then describes common procedures for addressing trustworthiness concerns. Epistemological and Ontological Schism in Qualitative Research Evaluating the quality of scientific research has largely been rooted in an implicit assumption that there is a single “truth” or one reality that is experienced similarly by everyone. The purpose of the scientific process then is to objectively observe, measure, and report the dimensions and properties of any given phenomenon. This positivist worldview maintains that what the scientific method reveals in a given context or culture is generalizable to other contexts and cultures because there is only one reality. Accordingly, quality research in this paradigm is concerned with how valid and reliable the data, procedures, and analysis of a study are in revealing this objective truth. Validity in this interpretation is concerned with how well a study meets the established requirements of the scientific method, which have been agreed upon to be important steps in uncovering observable realities. Reliability, on the other hand, conveys quality by ensuring that the outcomes of a study are repeatable and replicable. To this day, this scientific viewpoint pervades the physical sciences; however, in the late 1970s, anthropologists, sociologists, and qualitative educational researchers began to question whether these assumptions and steps were proper approaches to research concerning multiple truths or realities that were context-specific. The questions from this early cadre of researchers grew into a chorus of critiques of the hidden and embedded approaches to research in general and qualitative research in particular that emanated from the positivist paradigm. The belief was that these approaches were complicit in marginalizing the experiences and voices of cultures and peoples who did not have the resources, power, or space to assert their own narratives into the cannon of formalized knowledge about human beings and the social world. This new wave of thinking Page 2 of 5 Trustworthiness SAGE SAGE Research Methods 2018 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. critiqued the prevailing positivist paradigm, injecting the notion of multiple truths and realities into the scientific method not only as an important and worthy endeavor but as an epistemological and ontological stance. In agreement, some scholars informed by critical social theory believed that the quality of research should be assessed by the political power it manifests for minoritized and oppressed peoples. Another subsection of critical scholars dismissed the need for any criteria to judge the quality of research as reductionist and denying the complexity that exists in the world. Still another group tried to reconcile these postpositivist critiques with an explicit focus on subjectivity; broad and flexible criteria for the evaluation of quality research; and sensitivity to histories, context, and the positionality of the researcher. The concept of trustworthiness emerged from the thinking and writing of scholars in the third group as a way to effectively address the epistemological and ontological concerns of research while attending to the issues of research quality. In 1985, Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba are credited with establishing the first iteration of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Their initial idea was concerned with evolving the four questions that evaluators and consumers of research typically raise. Truth value, or how a researcher “can establish confidence in the truth of the findings of a particular inquiry,” was refashioned as credibility. Applicability, or how a researcher “can determine the extent to which the findings of a study have applicability in other contexts,” was reframed as transferability. Consistency, or how a researcher can determine “whether the findings of a study would be repeated if the study were replicated with similar [participants],” became dependability. Finally, the question of neutrality, or how a researcher establishes “the degree to which the findings of a study are determined by the [participants]” and not the “biases, motivations, interests, or perspectives” of the researcher, was adapted as confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). Variations of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability have subsequently become the core tenants of trustworthiness. Common Trustworthiness Strategies Although there are numerous procedures that qualitative researchers can employ to address the various tenets of trustworthiness, this section focuses on two of the more widely used strategies: triangulation and participant validation (also known as member reflections, member validation, respondent validation, verification, and member checks). Triangulation in qualitative research relates to trustworthiness because it is concerned with using multiple indicators throughout a research project to convey the dependability, credibility, and likely transferability of a study. The underlying philosophy of triangulation is to use multiple strategies to cancel out the weaknesses of any one method. There are four common approaches to triangulation. Researcher triangulation involves the engagement of multiple researchers in a study that brings together their unique insights during the inquiry. Data triangulation includes seeking out two or more forms of data from diverse sources to build more comprehensive interpretations of a phenomenon. Theory triangulation denotes the need to approach a research study with various frameworks, sensitizing a researcher to the contexts or dynamics that may be of relevance. Finally, methodological triangulation is typically seen as the use of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. However, qualitative researchers can also employ methodological triangulation by pairing different qualitative methods together (e.g., grounded theory and case Page 3 of 5 Trustworthiness SAGE SAGE Research Methods 2018 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. study). Another prominent trustworthiness procedure related to credibility and confirmability is participant validation. Seeking participant validation is the systematic process of engaging the study participants with the data, findings, and/or analysis of a project both to ascertain if researchers accurately reflected their lived experiences and to garner new data that may spur richer insights, a fuller understanding of context and how it mediates experiences and events, and deeper analysis. Engaging in participant validation can occur at any point in a research project; it is one critical way to deal with, account for, and make explicit data that do not coincide with emergent themes or categories in a study. The systematic search for disconfirming evidence or what some refer to as “outliers” and for contradictions through participant validation also adds to the trustworthiness of a study. Although there are myriad strategies available to a researcher seeking trustworthiness, it is vital to understand and respond to the unique audiences and disciplinary expectations that also exert influence on how the quality of research is judged. Consequently, while the criteria for seeking trustworthiness remain flexible, serious attention and concern should be given in the research design, implementation, and articulation phases of a research project to weave in strategies that address the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of a study. See also Ethical Issues in Educational Research; Member Check; Naturalistic Inquiry; Pilot Studies; Qualitative Data Analysis; Qualitative Research Methods; Representativeness; Triangulation; Validity Demetri L. Morgan & Sharon M. Ravitch 10.4135/9781506326139.n716 Further Readings Bochner, A. P. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 266–272. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17. Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pratt, M. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862. Page 4 of 5 Trustworthiness SAGE SAGE Research Methods 2018 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Ravitch, S. M., & Mittenfelner C. N. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. Page 5 of 5 Trustworthiness Writing Chapter 4: Trustworthiness of the Data section As noted in the dissertation template for qualitative studies, the section directly following the Chapter 4 introduction is to be labeled Trustworthiness of the Data, and in this section, qualitative researchers are required to articulate evidence of four primary criteria to ensure trustworthiness of the final study data set:  Credibility (e.g., triangulation, member checks) Credibility of qualitative data can be assured through multiple perspectives throughout data collection to ensure data are appropriate. This may be done through data, investigator, or theoretical triangulation; participant validation or member checks; or the rigorous techniques used to gather the data.  Transferability (e.g., the extent to which the findings are generalizable to other situations) Generalizability is not expected in qualitative research, so transferability of qualitative data assures the study findings are applicable to similar settings or individuals. Transferability can be demonstrated by clear assumptions and contextual inferences of the research setting and participants.  Dependability (e.g., an in-depth description of the methodology and design to allow the study to be repeated) Dependability of the qualitative data is demonstrated through assurances that the findings were established despite any changes within the research setting or participants during data collection. Again, rigorous data collection techniques and procedures can assure dependability of the final data set.  Confirmability (e.g., the steps to ensure that the data and findings are not due to participant and/or researcher bias) Confirmability of qualitative data is assured when data are checked and rechecked throughout data collection and analysis to ensure results would likely be repeatable by others. This can be documented by a clear coding schema that identifies the codes and patterns identified in analyses. Finally, a data audit prior to analysis can also ensure dependability. For more information on these criteria, visit the Sage Research Methods database in the NCU Library: Center for Teaching and Learning Northcentral University November 2018 Linda Amankwaa, PhD, RN, FAAN Abstract: Experienced and novice researchers, plan qualitative proposals where evidence of rigor must be provided within the document. One option is the creation of a trustworthiness protocol with details noting the characteristic of rigor, the process used to document the rigor, and then a timeline directing the planned time for conducting trustworthiness activities. After reviewing several documents, an actual plan of conducting trustworthiness as not found. Thus, these authors set out to create a trustworthiness protocol designed not only for the dissertation, but a framework for others who must create similar trustworthiness protocols for their research. The purpose of this article is to provide a referencefor the trustworthiness plan, a dissertation example and showcase a trustworthiness protocol that may be used as an example to other qualitative researchers embarking on the creation of a trustworthiness protocol that is concrete and clear. Key Words: Trustworthiness, Research Protocols, Qualitative Research C reating P rotocols for T rustworthiness in Q ualitative R esearch nything perceived as being of low or no value is also perceived as being worthless, unreliable, or invalid. Research that is perceived as worthless is said to lack rigor. This means findings are not worth noting or paying attention to, because they are unreliable. To avoid this argument, proof of reliability and validity in qualitative research methods is required. However, some researchers have suggested that reliability and validity are not terms to be used to explain the usefulness of qualitative research. They believe that those terms are to be used to validate quantitative research (Altheide & Johnson, 1998; Leininger, 1994). Morse (1999) expressed concern about qualitative research losing value by em­ phasizing when qualitative researchers fail to recognize crucial importance of reliability and validity in qualita­ tive methods, they are also mistakenly supporting the idea that qualitative research is defective and worthless, lacking in thoroughness, and of unempirical value. Guba and Lincoln (1981) stated that, “All research must have ‘truth value’, ‘applicability’, ‘consistency’, and ‘neutrality’ in order to be considered worthwhile. They concluded that the end result of establishing rigor or “trustworthiness,” (the analogous for rigor in qualitative research), for each method of research requires a differ­ ent approach. It was noted by Guba and Lincoln (1981), A Linda Am ankwaa, PhD, RN, FAAN, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Nursing at Albany State Uni­ versity in Albany, GA31705. Dr. Amankwaa may be reached at: 229-430-4731 or at: Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 within the rationalistic paradigm, criteria to reach the goal of rigor are internal validity, external validity, reli­ ability, and objectivity. They proposed use of terms such as credibility, fittingness, auditability, and confirmability in qualitative research to ensure “trustworthiness” (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). Later, these criteria were changed to credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirm­ ability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that the value of a research study is strengthened by its trustworthiness. As established by Lincoln and Guba in the 1980s, trustwor­ thiness involves establishing: • Credibility – confidence in the ‘tru th ‘ of the finding • Transferability – showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts • Dependability – showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated • Confirmability – a degree of neutrality or the ex­ tent to which the findings of a study are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest. For purposes of this discussion, this classic work is used to frame trustworthiness actions and activities to create a protocol for qualitative studies. Nursing faculty and doctoral nursing students who conduct qualitative research will find this reference useful. Fall 2016 Credibility Activities Lincoln and Guba (1985) described a series of techniques that can be used to conduct qualitative research that at­ tains the criteria they outlined. Techniques for establishing credibility as identified by Lincoln and Guba (1985) are: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangula­ tion, peer debriefing, negative case analysis, referential adequacy, and member-checking. Typically member check­ ing is viewed as a technique for establishing the validity of an account. Lincoln and Guba posit that this is the most crucial technique for establishing credibility. Transferability Activities One strategy that can be employed to facilitate transferability is thick description (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Thick description is described by Lincoln and Guba as a way of achieving a type of external valid­ ity. By describing a phenom enon in sufficient detail one can begin to evaluate the extent to which the conclusions draw n are transferable to other times, settings, situations, and people. Since, as stated by Merriam (1995) it is the responsibility of the consumer of research to determine or decide if and how research results m ight be applied to other settings, the original researcher m ust provide detailed information about the phenom enon of study to assist the consumer in making the decision. This requires the provision of copious amounts of information regard­ ing every aspect of the research. The investigator will include such details as the location setting, atmosphere, climate, participants present, attitudes of the participants involved, reactions observed that may not be captured on audio recording, bonds established between participants, and feelings of the investigator. One word descriptors will not suffice in the development of thick description. The investigator in essence is telling a story w ith enough detail that the consum er/reader obtains a vivid picture of the events of the research. This can be accomplished through journaling and m aintaining records w hether digital or handw ritten for review by the consum er/reader. Confirmability Activities To establish confirmability Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested confirmability audit, audit trail, triangulation, and reflexivity. An audit trail is a transparent description of the research steps taken from the start of a research project to the development and reporting of findings (Lincoln & Guba). These are records that are kept regarding what was done in an investigation. Lincoln and Guba cite H alpern’s (1983) categories for reporting information when develop­ ing an audit trail: “1) Raw data including all raw data, written field notes, unobstrusive measures (documents); 2) Data reduction and analysis products – including sum ­ maries such as condensed notes, unitized information and quantitative summaries and theoretical notes; 3) Data reconstruction and synthesis products – includ­ ing structure of categories (themes, definitions, and relationships), findings and conclusions and a final report including connections to existing literatures and an integration o f concepts, relationships, and interpretations; 4) Process notes – including method­ ological notes (procedures, designs, strategies, ratio­ nales), trustworthiness notes (relating to credibility, dependability and confirmability) and audit trail notes; 5) Materials relating to intentions and dispositions – Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 including inquiry proposal, personal notes (reflexive notes and. motivations) and expectations (predictions and intentions); 6) Instrument development informa­ tion – including pilot forms, preliminary schedules, observation formats” (page#). Using multiple data sources within an investigation to enhance understanding is called triangulation. Researchers see triangulation as a m ethod for corroborating findings and as a test for validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Rather than seeing triangulation as a method for validation or veri­ fication, qualitative researchers generally use this technique to ensure that an account is rich, robust, comprehensive and well-developed (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Denzin (1978) and Patton (1999) identify four types of triangulation: methods triangulation, source triangulation; analyst triangulation; theory/perspective triangulation. They suggested that methods triangulation involves check­ ing out the consistency of finding generated by different data collection methods. Triangulation of sources is an examination of the consistency of different data sources from within the same m ethod (i.e. at different points in time; in public vs. private settings; comparing people with different viewpoints). Another one of the four methods identified by Denzin and Patton includes analyst triangulation. This is the use of multiple analysts to review findings or using multiple observers and analysts. This provides a check on selective perception and illuminate blind spots in an interpretive analysis. The goal is to understand multiple ways of see­ ing the data. Finally, they described theory/perspective triangulation as the use of multiple theoretical perspectives to examine and interpret the data. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) reflexivity is, “An attitude of attending systematically to the context of knowledge construction, especially to the effect of the researcher, at every step of the research process.” They suggested the following steps to develop reflexivity: 1) Designing research that includes multiple investigators. This fosters dialogue, leads to the development of comple­ mentary and divergent understandings of a study situation and provides a context in which researchers’ (often hid­ den) – beliefs, values, perspectives and assumptions can be revealed and contested; 2) Develop a reflexive journal. This is a type of diary where a researcher makes regular entries during the research process. In these entries, the researcher records methodological decisions and the reasons for them, the logistics of the study and reflection upon w hat is hap­ pening in terms of one’s own values and interests. Diary keeping of this type is often very private and cathartic; 3) Report research perspectives, positions, values and beliefs in manuscripts and other publications. Many believe that it is valuable and essential to briefly report in manuscripts, as best as possible, how one’s preconceptions, beliefs, values, assumptions and position may have come into play during the research process. Dependability Activities To establish dependability, Lincoln and Guba (1985) sug­ gested a technique known as inquiry audit. Inquiry audits are conducted by having a researcher that is not involved in the research process examine both the process and product of the research study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy and evaluate whether or not the findings, interpretations and conclusions are supported by the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Fall 2016 Creating a Protocol for Qualitative Researchers REFERENCES The creation of a protocol for establishing trustwor­ thiness within qualitative research is essential to rigor. Further, we note that researchers rarely document how or what their trustworthiness plan or protocol consisted of within research documents. Thus, we posit here that creating such a protocol prior to initiation of the research study is essential to revealing trustworthiness within the research process. By creating this plan a priori, the rigor of qualitative research is apparent. This history and purposed need for this article heralds from a doctoral dissertation search to find examples of trustworthiness protocols for direction to complete trust­ worthiness within doctoral qualitative research. Since none could be found, discussions lead the researcher to create a table that could used by those who are planning qualita­ tive studies. Another interesting point is that qualitative researchers, unlike quantitative researchers, rarely create protocol guidelines. The establishment of trustworthiness protocols in quali­ tative research requires the use of several techniques. This protocol will be detail specific so those researchers have a guideline for trustworthiness activities. Such a protocol guides prospective qualitative researchers in their quest for rigor. Several tables are presented here. The first table outlines the main topics within the trustworthiness proto­ col. The remaining tables outline the suggested activities within trustworthiness protocol and for those creating a trustworthiness protocol. Table one is the basic criteria for a trustworthiness pro­ tocol using Lincoln and Guba (1985). However, researchers may use other models of rigor. Creating a table aligned with the planned model of rigor is the recommendation. The following five table are examples of a “created” protocol with examples of very specific activities related to each trustworthiness criteria. Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1998). Criteria for assessing interpre­ tive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting materials, 283- 312. Creswell, J. & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity and qualita­ tive inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 125-130. Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation: improving the usefidness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-279. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Morse, J. (1999). Myth #3: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative mquiry.Qualitative Heath Research, 9, 717. Patton, M. Q. (1999). “Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.” HSR: Health Services Research. 34(5), Part II, 1189-1208. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of Argibusiness, 23 (1), 75-91. Carpenter, R. (1995). Grounded theory research approach. In H. J. Streubert & R. D. Carpenter(Eds-), Qualitative research and in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative, 145-161. Cohen D., Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. July 2006. html Giacomini, M. & Cook, D. (2000). A user’s guide to qualitative research in health care. In Users’ guides to evidence-based medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4), 478-482. Morse, J. Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and valid­ ity in qualitative research. International Journal of Q ualita­ tive Methods, 1, 2, Article 2. Retrieved April 30, 2010 from http: / / w w w Neuman, L. (2003). Qualitative and quantitative measurements. In Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, fifth edition, 169-209. Plack, M. (2005). Hum an nature and research paradigms: Theory meets physical therapy practice. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 223-245. Polit, D. & Hungler, B. (1999). Research control in quantitative research. In Nursing research: P rinciples and m ethods, sixth edition, 219-238. Lippincott. Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Siegle, D. (2002). Principles and methods in educational research: A web-based course from the University of Connecticut. Re­ trieved April 30, 2010 from http: / / siegle / research/qualitative / qualitativeInstructorNotes.html Tobin, G. & Begley, C. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388-396. Summary In summary, trustworthiness is a vital component within the research process. Attending to the language of trustworthiness and the important activities of reliabil­ ity, add to the comprehensiveness and the quality of the research product. This discussion heralds the new idea that trustworthiness must be planned ahead of time with a protocol. This protocol must include dates and times trustworthiness actions. We contend that researchers can use the protocol by adding two columns which specify the date of the planned trustworthiness action and the date the action was actually completed. This information can then be included in the audit trail thus authenticating the work qualitative researcher and the rigor of the research. Table 1. Basic Trustworthiness Criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) Criteria Journal of Cultural Diversity Technique Credibility Peer debriefing, member checks, journaling Transferability Thick description, journaling Dependability Inquiry audit with audit trail Confirmability Triangulation, journaling Fall 2016 Table 2. Credibility Recommended activities/plan Credibility Peer debriefing/debriefer 1. Write plan within proposal. 2. Commission a peer to work with researcher during the time of interviews and data collection. 3. This person must complete an attestation form to work with researcher. Plan to meet with this person after each interview. 4. During visits with the peer debriefer, research and peer discuss interviews, feelings, actions of subjects, thoughts, and ideas that present during this time. Discuss blocking, clouding and other feelings of researcher. Discuss dates and times needed for these activities. W ill meet once a week for 30 minutes to an hour. 5. Journal these meetings. W rite about thoughts that surfaced and keep these dated for research and evaluation during data analysis. 6. Need to be computer files so that you may use this information within data analysis. Mem ber Checks Journaling plans Protocol 1. Outline different times and reasons you plan to conduct member checks or collect feedback from members about any step in the research process. 2. Member checks will consist of communication with members after significant activities. 3. These activities may include interviews, data analysis, and other activities. 4. Within two weeks of the interview, send members a copy of their interview so that they can read it and edit for accuracy. 5. Within two weeks of data analysis completion, member will review a copy o f the final themes. 6. Members are asked the question, “Does the interview transcript reflect your words during the interview?” 7. Choose negative cases and cases that follow pattern. 8. Be sure these check are recorded and are computer files so that you may use this information in data analysis. 1. Journaling will begin with the writing of the proposal. 2. Journaling will be conducted after each significant activity. These include each interview, weekly during analysis, after peer debriefing visits, and theme production. 3. Journals will be audited by research auditor. 4. Journals will include dates, times, places and persons on the research team. 5. Journals need to be computer files so that you may use them in data analysis. Create a timeline with planned dates for each activity related to credibility before commencing the study. This protocol with dates and activities should appear in the appendix. Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 Fall 2016 Table 3. Transferability Thick Description Journaling Actions for this activity include: 1. Reviewing crafted questions with Peer reviewer for clarity. 2. Planning questions that call for extended answers. 3. Asking open ended questions that solicit detailed answers. 4. Interviewing in such a way as to obtain a detailed, thick and robust response. 5. The object is to reproduce the phenomenon of research as clearly and as detailed as possible. 6. This action is replicated with each participant and with each question (sub-question) or statement. 7. This continues until all questions and sub-questions are discussed. 8. The peer reviewer along with the researcher review responses for thickness and robustness. 9. There are two issues related to thick description here. The first is receiving thick responses (not one sentence paragraphs). The second is writing up the responses of multiple participants in such a way as to describe the phenomena as a thick response. Actions for this activity include: 1. Planning journal work in advance is an option. Such that the researcher could decide what dates and how often the journal will occur. 2. Journaling after interview is common. 3. Journaling after peer-review sessions. 4. Journaling after a major event during the study. 5. Journal entries should be discussed with peer reviewer such that expression of thoughts and ideas gleaned during research activities can be connected to participants’ experiences. 6. Journals can be maintained in various formats. Information for the journal can be received in the form of emails, documents, recordings, note cards/note pads. We recommend that the researcher decide on one of the options. 7. Journaling includes dates of actions related to significant and insignificant activities of the research. 8. Journal may start on the first date a decision is made to conduct the research. 9. Journaling ends when the research is completed and all participants have been interviewed. 10. As with each of the concepts here, create a timeline with a date-line protocol for each activity before commencing the study. Protocol Create a timeline with planned dates for each activity related to transferability before commencing the study. This protocol with dates and activities should appear in the appendix. Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 Fall 2016 Table 4. Dependability Audit Trail Journaling Components of the audit trail include: 1. Make the list of documents planned for audit during the research work. 2. Commission the auditor based on plan for study. 3. Decide audit trail review dates and times. 4. See auditor information below 5. W rite up audit trail results in the journal. Actions for this activity include: I. Planning journal work in advance is an option. Such that the researcher could decide what dates and how often the journal will occur. I I . Journaling after interview is common. 12. Journaling after peer-review sessions. 13. Journaling after a major event during the study. 14. Journal entries should be discussed with peer reviewer such that expression of thoughts and ideas gleaned during research activities can be connected to participants’ experiences. 15. Journals can be maintained in various formats. Information for the journal can be received in the form of emails, documents, recordings, note cards/note pads. W e recommend that the researcher decide on one of the options. 16. Journaling includes dates of actions related to significant and insignificant activities of the research. 17. Journal may start on the first date a decision is made to conduct the research. 18. Journaling ends when the research is completed and all participants have been interviewed. Auditor Protocol 1. The auditor is reviewing the documents for authenticity and consistency. 2. The auditor may be a colleague or someone unfam iliar with the research such that activities can be questioned for clarity. 3. The auditor should have some comprehension of the research process. 4. Planning in advance for the time comm itment as an auditor is crucial. 5. Should provide constructive feedback on processes in an honest fashion. 6. Auditor, researcher, and participants should speak the same language. 7. Must be able to create and maintain audit trail documents. Create a tim eline with planned dates for each activity related dependability before commencing the study. This protocol with dates and activities should appear in the appendix. Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 Fall 2016 Table 5. Confirmability Triangulation Journaling 1. Determine triangulation methods 2. Document triangulation plans within journal. 3. Discuss triangulation results peer-reviewer 4. Decide if further triangulation is needed 5. Write up the triangulation results. Actions for this activity include: 2. Planning journal work in advance is an option. Such that the researcher could decide what dates and how often the journal will occur. 19. Journaling after interview is common. 20. Journaling after peer-review sessions. 21. Journaling after a major event during the study. 22. Journal entries should be discussed with peer reviewer such that expression of thoughts and ideas gleaned during research activities can be connected to participants experiences. 23. Journals can be maintained in various formats. Information for the journal can be received in the form of emails, documents, recordings, note cards/note pads. We recommend that the researcher decide on one of the options. 24. Journaling includes dates of actions related to significant and insignificant activities of the research. 25. Journal may start on the first date a decision is made to conduct the research. Journaling ends when the research is completed and all participants have been interviewed. Protocol Create a timeline with planned dates for each activity related confirmability before commencing the study. This protocol with dates and activities should appear in the appendix. Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 (E 9 Fall 2016 Copyright of Journal of Cultural Diversity is the property of Tucker Publications, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Purchase answer to see full attachment User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.