EDU800 – Week 11 – Additional Articles

#1

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.

Summary
In this article, Golafshani (2003) examines how reliability and validity are conceptualized and operationalized in qualitative research. She argues that definitions originating in quantitative traditions—where reliability centers on measurement consistency and validity focuses on accuracy—cannot be applied without modification in interpretivist contexts. Drawing on a range of methodological theorists, she explains how qualitative researchers reconceptualize trustworthiness through criteria such as credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability. A major emphasis of the paper is the role of triangulation, not as a numerical verification strategy but as a way to deepen, enrich, and broaden understandings of a phenomenon. Golafshani also highlights the integral role of researcher subjectivity in qualitative inquiry, positioning it as a resource rather than a threat to rigor. Throughout the article, she makes the case that reliability and validity are intertwined in qualitative work because meaning-making is inseparable from the researcher’s interpretive stance.

Evaluation
As I reviewed this article, I found Golafshani’s treatment of reliability and validity particularly useful for bridging conversations that often emerge in educational research, especially at the doctoral level. Her articulation of qualitative rigor aligns well with current methodological expectations, particularly the emphasis on trustworthiness as a holistic construct. I also appreciated the clarity with which she contrasted quantitative and qualitative paradigms without privileging one over the other. What stands out most is her critique of researchers who attempt to apply quantitative definitions of rigor to qualitative designs without considering epistemological differences; this is an issue I’ve encountered repeatedly while reading studies in educational technology.

The article does, however, rely heavily on conceptual synthesis rather than empirical demonstration. Although the theoretical grounding is strong, Golafshani could have further strengthened her argument by providing concrete examples of how credibility or dependability were evaluated in actual qualitative studies. Even so, for researchers working across paradigms—including those engaged in mixed-methods designs—her discussion provides a balanced framework for understanding how rigor must be defined relative to underlying assumptions about knowledge and meaning.

Reflection
This article aligns closely with my developing identity as both a doctoral student in educational technology and an instructor responsible for evaluating student performance in diverse, tech-mediated environments. In my teaching at DeVry—whether in BIS155, BIS310, SEC440, or SEC285—I often assess student work that blends both quantitative and qualitative components. Understanding how reliability and validity function differently across methodological traditions helps me better interpret student responses, evaluate rubric design, and build transparent criteria for assignments that involve personal interpretation, analysis, or applied reasoning.

From a research perspective, Golafshani’s discussion reinforces the importance of explicitly defining rigor when working with qualitative data, particularly as I move toward designing studies that explore motivation, engagement, and instructional design in online and blended learning environments. Much of my professional work in IT project management and customer success also involves gathering evidence through conversations, observations, and user feedback. Recognizing how credibility and dependability shape the interpretation of qualitative insights helps me approach these tasks more systematically and ethically. Overall, this article enhances my understanding of how to evaluate and conduct research that relies on interpretation and meaning-making—skills that will directly support my dissertation work and strengthen the scholarly foundation of my teaching and professional practice.