12.4 Validity as a social construction
Validation of the qualitative
interpretations I have done in this dissertation is taken care of by amongst
others quoting the participants in the text. These quotations are a selection
which are chosen in order to support what in my opinion seems to be to be most
relevant in relation to the exploration of the concept and phenomenon of shame
within the context of a Norwegian Incest Centre. Guba and Lincoln (2005) argue that validity
can be seen as a different form of authenticity, as a form of resistance, and
as an ethical relationship. Kvale (1996) writes that validity in qualitative
research has to do with craftsmanship. This involves checking, questioning, and
theorizing. Lincoln and Guba (2002) also write about the importance of the writer’s
emotional and intellectual commitment to craftsmanship. According to Holstein and Gubrium (1995), the key to the interview is
the active nature of the process involved which leads to a contextually bound
and mutually created story. One way of viewing validity in such a mutually created
story can therefore be discussed in terms of its authenticity, resistance,
ethics and craftsmanship. Kvale (1996) says that this means that validity is
also a social construction.
Fontana and Frey (2005) argue that active
interviewing is a form of empathetic interviewing which they call “…a method of
morality because it attempts to restore the sacredness of humans before
addressing any theoretical or methodological concerns” (Fontana and Frey 2005: 697). They say that if
one accepts that neutrality is not possible, then taking a stance is
unavoidable.
The new empathetic approaches take an ethical stance in favour of the
individual or group being studied. The interviewer becomes advocate and partner
in the study, hoping to be able to use the results to advocate social policies
and ameliorate the conditions of the interviewee. The preference is to study oppressed
and underdeveloped groups (Fontana
and Frey 2005: 696).
Asking questions and getting answers
is, as mentioned above, much more difficult than it may seem at first. People
involved in the interview may choose different strategies in asking questions
and in giving answers. Both parties in the interview can work strategically.
Law (2004) writes that
Realities are produced along with the statements that report them. The
argument is that they are not necessarily independent, anterior, definite and
singular. If they appear to be so (as they usually do), then this itself is an
effect that has been produced in practice, a consequence of method (Law 2004: 38).
The problem is not only what we do,
but also how we do it. Knowledge is not just the objective result or product of
scientific work, such as can be recorded in articles, doctoral dissertations or
other scientific presentations, but also something we do and we call this
productive activity scientific research. Research is a creative and
interpretive practice. Holstein and Gubrium
(2005) explain that
Interpretive practice engages both the how’s and the what’s of social
reality; it is centered in both how people methodologically construct their
experiences and their worlds, and in the configurations of meaning and
institutional life that inform and shape their reality-constructing activity. A
growing attention to both the how’s and the what’s of the social construction
process echoes Karl Marx’s (1956) adage that people actively construct their
worlds but not completely on, or in, their own terms (Holstein and Gubrium 2005: 484).
No comments:
Post a Comment