In this article, I focus on two ways of conceptualizing validity and validation, by using reductionist and (e)pistemological approaches, respectively. I question some common understandings of reductionist validation and describe an (e)pistemological standpoint that provides an alternative to reductionist views. In addition, I argue that validity and validation, as concepts, are tools rather than reflections of truth. Furthermore, fallibility, which is embedded in all views of validity and validation, can be compensated with pluralism, as well as acceptance, coexistence, and collaboration with the Other.
Agar, M. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Angen, M. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378-395.
3.
Anderson, G., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12-21, 40.
4.
Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. (1985). Validity and the research process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally .
6.
Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. New York: Routledge.
7.
Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
8.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
10.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Gergen, M., & Gergen, K. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations . In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1025-1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
13.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
14.
Heikkinen, H., Kakkori, L., & Huttunen, R. (2001). This is my truth, tell me yours: Some aspects of action research quality in the light of truth theories. Educational Action Research, 9(1), 9-24.
15.
Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (Eds.). (2004). Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
James, W. (1977). A pluralistic universe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1909)
17.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
18.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4), 63-84.
20.
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism . Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673-693.
21.
Lather, P. (2004). This is your father's paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15-34.
22.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35-57.
23.
LeCompte, M.,Millroy, W., & Preissle, J. (Ed.). ( 1992). The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24.
Lincoln, Y., & Denzin, N. (1994). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 1, pp. 575-586). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research . Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.
27.
Merriam, S. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51-60.
28.
Michrina, B., & Richards, C. (1996). Person to person: Fieldwork, dialogue, and the hermeneutic method. Albany: State University of New York Press.
29.
Mishler, E. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review , 60(4), 415-442.
30.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Nespor, J. (2006). Morphologies of inquiry: The uses and spaces of paradigm proliferation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 115-128.
32.
Puolimatka, T. (2002). Kvalitatiivisen tutkimuksen luotettavuus ja totuusteoriat [The validity of qualitative research and theories of truth]. Kasvatus [Finnish Journal of Education], 33(5), 465-473.
33.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Scheurich, J.J. (1996). The masks of validity: A deconstructive investigation . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 9(1), 49-60.
35.
Schwandt, T. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Smith, J., & Deemer, D. (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism . In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 877-896). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Sparkes, A. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 538-552.
38.
Spivak, G. (1997). Translator's preface. In J. Derrida (Ed.), Of grammatology (pp. ix-lxxxvii). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Thayer-Bacon, B. (2003). Relational "(e)pistemologies." NewYork: Peter Lang.
40.
Wright, H. (2006). Qualitative researchers on paradigm proliferation in educational research: A question-and-answer session as multi-voiced text . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 19(1), 77-95.
