2007
DOI: 10.1002/ev.223
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation

Abstract: This chapter situates Guba and Lincoln's chapter within the broad philosophical debate about the justifiability of interpretations.The emergence of a new paradigm of inquiry (naturalistic) has, unsurprisingly enough, led to a demand for rigorous criteria that meet traditional standards of inquiry. Two sets are suggested, one of which, the “trustworthiness” criteria, parallels conventional criteria, while the second, “ authenticity” criteria, is implied directly by new paradigm assumptions.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
360
0
7

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 456 publications
(369 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
2
360
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…The first author found and visualized motifs to create a map (Corel Corporation, 2017) with the following themes: (1) becoming a person, (2) moving away from a narrow identity and (3) developing a creative identity. To ensure trustworthiness, the authors met to discuss themes to check for alternative interpretations (Finlay, 2011; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011; Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). In addition, themes and narratives were presented and critically discussed in different ways: at an open meeting with the participants and people involved in the MTW, with the participants who owned the narratives, on a dialogue forum for practice-oriented research in Norway, and at the Culture, Health and Well-Being International Conference in the UK.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first author found and visualized motifs to create a map (Corel Corporation, 2017) with the following themes: (1) becoming a person, (2) moving away from a narrow identity and (3) developing a creative identity. To ensure trustworthiness, the authors met to discuss themes to check for alternative interpretations (Finlay, 2011; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011; Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). In addition, themes and narratives were presented and critically discussed in different ways: at an open meeting with the participants and people involved in the MTW, with the participants who owned the narratives, on a dialogue forum for practice-oriented research in Norway, and at the Culture, Health and Well-Being International Conference in the UK.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore the direct involvement of the researchers in the industrial practice and challenges has allowed to define an get access to a number of case studies linked to the development of decision support for the design of systems and components. The opportunity to observe different industrial contexts allowed the application of cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989;Schwandt et al, 2007) on the gathered empirical data. The analysis of the systematic literature review (described in detailed in section 2.1) further contributed the definition of the AS-IS situation during DSI.…”
Section: Research Context and Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Triangulation involves using different sources, methods and different investigators to cross check the data and interpretation (Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). It is a powerful strategy for enhancing the quality and integrity of the research (Krefting, 1991).…”
Section: Triangulation and Member Checkingmentioning
confidence: 99%