What Is Dependability In Qualitative Research?

A qualitative study must provide its readers with evidence that if it were replicated with the same or similar respondents (participants) in the same (or a similar) context, its finding would be repeated

Dependability in qualitative research refers to the stability and consistency of the research findings over time.

While dependability is similar to reliability in quantitative research, there’s a key difference in how it’s approached.

Quantitative research aims for replicable results, but qualitative research acknowledges the inherent variability in human experiences and social contexts.

Therefore, dependability in qualitative research is not about achieving identical results if the study were repeated.

Instead, it focuses on transparency in documenting the research process so that variations in findings can be understood and explained.

This is often described as “trackable variability,” where changes in findings can be traced back to identifiable sources, making the research process both transparent and credible.

Strategies for Enhancing dependability

When conducting qualitative research, it’s crucial to establish and maintain dependability (similar to reliability in quantitative research) to ensure the consistency and trustworthiness of your findings.

Establishing Clear Protocols Early:

• Begin with a robust conceptual framework: This framework will guide your methodological choices throughout the research process.
  
  A clear framework helps to ensure consistency and a logical connection between the research question, study design, data collection, analysis, and the interpretation of findings.
• Develop detailed research procedures: Outline all aspects of your study, including sampling methods, data collection tools, and analysis techniques.
  
  This meticulous documentation creates a roadmap for others to follow and potentially replicate your study, ultimately contributing to dependability.
• Pre-determine choices for member-checking procedures: Provide participants with clear information about the member-checking process, including choices for reviewing transcripts (e.g., hard copies, electronic versions, audio recordings) and the level of detail they can expect.

Documenting All Changes and Decisions:

• Maintain an audit trail: This documentation should include all decisions made throughout the research process, including any changes to the research design, data collection methods, or coding analysis techniques.
  
  The audit trail allows for transparency and traceability, enabling others to understand the evolution of the study and the rationale behind any modifications.
• Use reflexive journaling: A researcher’s personal reflections, thoughts, and assumptions can influence the research process.
  
  Documenting these reflections in a journal fosters transparency and helps to mitigate potential biases, contributing to the confirmability and overall dependability of the findings.
• Address inconsistencies: If any inconsistencies or unexpected developments arise during the study, address them openly and explain how they were handled.
  
  Transparency about challenges and how they were managed strengthens the dependability of the research by acknowledging potential influences on the findings.

Maintaining Consistent Review Processes:

• Engage in peer debriefing: Discuss your analysis and interpretations with colleagues or experts to get feedback and identify potential blind spots.
  
  This collaborative review process helps to ensure that the findings are grounded in the data and not solely influenced by the researcher’s perspective.
• Consider stepwise replication: If feasible, involve two researchers or teams working independently with divided data sets.
  
  Comparing the results from these separate analyses can enhance the dependability of the findings.
• Implement member checking: While member checking has its complexities, it can be used to verify the accuracy of transcripts, clarify interpretations, and ensure that the findings resonate with the participants’ experiences.

Using Systematic Documentation Methods:

• Employ dense description: Provide detailed accounts of your research methods, the context of the study, and the characteristics of your sample.
  
  Rich, descriptive data allows readers to assess the transferability of your findings to other settings or populations.
• Utilize clear and consistent coding procedures: Develop a comprehensive codebook and document the rationale for code creation and application.
  
  This systematic approach to coding enhances the consistency and transparency of the data analysis process.
• Consider using software for data management and analysis: Qualitative data analysis software can help to organize, code, and analyze data systematically, contributing to the dependability of the findings.

Implementing Regular Quality Checks:

• Conduct a code-recode procedure: After an initial coding phase, re-code a portion of your data after a period of time to check for consistency in your coding application.
• Reflect on evolving methodological decisions: As you progress through your research, document any adjustments to your methods and articulate the rationale behind these decisions. This practice demonstrates a commitment to ongoing reflection and rigor.
• Seek feedback from your supervisor or a trusted colleague throughout the process: Regular feedback can help to identify potential issues related to dependability and ensure that the study is on track.

By diligently incorporating these best practices into your research design and execution, you can effectively enhance the dependability of your qualitative study, making your findings more trustworthy and impactful.

How do I report dependability in my research?

Remember, the goal of reporting dependability is to make the research process as transparent as possible, allowing readers to make informed judgments about the trustworthiness and rigor of the study.

By carefully documenting the research process and addressing potential sources of variability, researchers can enhance the dependability of their qualitative studies, making their findings more robust and trustworthy.

Methods Section:

Here, researchers clearly and comprehensively describe their research process, including data collection methods, sampling strategies, data analysis techniques, and steps taken to ensure trustworthiness.

This detailed account provides an audit trail for readers to follow.

The methods section of a qualitative research paper is where you clearly and comprehensively lay out the procedures and decisions made during your study.

This detailed account acts as an audit trail, enabling readers to assess the dependability of your research and potentially replicate it or evaluate its rigor.

Here’s how you can highlight dependability in your methods section:

1. Detail Your Research Design: Start by providing a clear and specific description of the qualitative research approach you used (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography). This sets the stage for understanding your methodological choices.
2. Describe Data Collection Methods: Thoroughly outline your data collection methods, including:
   • The type of data collected (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations).
   • Sampling procedures and the rationale for your choices.
   • The context in which the data was collected.
   • A description of the data collection instruments or technologies used. This level of detail assures readers that you approached data collection systematically and thoughtfully.
3. Outline Your Data Analysis Techniques: Explain the specific techniques you employed to analyze your data, for example:
   • How data was organized and prepared for analysis.
   • The coding process and how you developed and applied codes.
   • The steps you took to identify patterns, themes, and relationships in the data.
   • Software used for data management and analysis (if applicable). By clearly describing your analytical procedures, you create transparency in how you derived your findings from the raw data.
4. Address Researcher Reflexivity: Explain how you managed your own perspectives and potential biases throughout the research process. This could involve:
   • Discussing your background and experiences and how they may have influenced your interpretations.
   • Keeping a reflexive journal to document your thoughts, feelings, and assumptions during the research.
   • Engaging in peer debriefing to discuss your analysis with colleagues and identify potential blind spots.
5. Document Methodological Decisions: Include information about any significant decisions you made during the study that could affect the dependability of the findings.
   • This might involve changes to the research design, data collection methods, or analysis techniques. Explain the rationale behind these decisions and how they might have influenced the results.

By meticulously reporting these aspects of your research in the methods section, you demonstrate the trackable variability inherent in qualitative research.

Any shifts or modifications in the findings can be attributed to identifiable sources, strengthening the dependability of your study.

This detailed documentation allows readers to evaluate the rigor of your process and determine the trustworthiness of your findings.

Results Section:

While results aren’t expected to be identical if a qualitative study were replicated, the results section should showcase the evidence of dependability through a transparent and convincing presentation of the findings.

Researchers should connect their findings to specific participant characteristics and use vivid data excerpts to illustrate their points.

• Ground Your Findings in Vivid Data Excerpts: Just like when demonstrating credibility, using rich, descriptive quotes taken directly from your participants is crucial for showcasing dependability. These quotes allow readers to see how your interpretations connect to the participants’ actual words.
• Connect Findings to Sample Characteristics: When presenting your findings, explicitly link them to the relevant characteristics of your sample.
  
  For instance, you could state, “Participants who had been laid off from their jobs expressed higher levels of anxiety compared to those who voluntarily left their positions.”
  
  This explicit connection between findings and sample characteristics increases the transparency of your analysis, enhancing dependability.
• Present Excerpts that Reflect the Range of Participant Perspectives: If your data reveals variations or inconsistencies in participant experiences, don’t shy away from presenting these diverse perspectives.
  
  Show that you’ve considered the full range of viewpoints.
  
  This approach demonstrates the richness and complexity of your data and reinforces the idea that your analysis reflects the actual variability within the sample, making it more dependable.
  
  
• Use Visual Aids to Enhance Transparency: Consider using tables, charts, or diagrams to present your findings in a clear and organized manner.
  
  Visual representations can help readers grasp complex patterns in the data and see how your findings emerge from the data, further enhancing transparency and dependability.

By showcasing transparency, rich description, and a clear connection between data and interpretations in your results section, you can effectively illustrate the dependability of your qualitative research.

This approach allows readers to confidently engage with your work and consider its implications.

Discussion Section:

Acknowledge and explain any sources of variability that may have influenced the findings.

This could include factors such as changes in the research setting, evolving researcher understanding, or participant fatigue.

Reading List

• Anney, V. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria.
• Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj, 29(2), 75-91.
• Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American journal of occupational therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1982). Establishing dependability and confirmability in naturalistic inquiry through an audit.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, 1986(30), 73-84.
• Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 2007(114).
• Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.