Article,
Determining validity in qualitative inquiry
Theory into practice, 39 (3): 124-130 (2000)
Abstract
WRITING ABOUT VALIDITY IN QUALITATIVE inquiry
is challenging on many levels. Multiple
perspectives about it flood the pages of books
(e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 1996; Merriam,
1998; Schwandt, 1997) and articles and chapters
(e.g., Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Lather, 1993;
Maxwell, 1992). In these texts, readers are treated to
a confusing array of terms for validity, including authenticity,
goodness, verisimilitude, adequacy, trustworthiness,
plausibility, validity, validation, and
credibility. Various authors have constructed diverse
typologies of validity (e.g., Maxwell’s five types,
1992; Lather’s four frames, 1993; and Schwandt’s
four positions, 1997). It is little wonder that Donmoyer
(1996), who wrote an editorial on validity
in the Educational Researcher, commented on the
diverse perspectives of validity by contrasting Miles
and Huberman’s (1994) “traditional conception of
validity” with Lather’s (1993) “ironic validity” (p.
21). Novice researchers, in particular, can become
increasingly perplexed in attempting to understand
the notion of validity in qualitative inquiry.
