Expanding Approaches for Research:

Understanding and Using Trustworthiness

in Qualitative Research
By Norman A. Stahl and James R. King

Qualitative inquiry has recently experienced a burgeoning in the field of up. On a different day, with a different researcher, in a different place, with a
educational research. Qualitative research is uniquely positioned to provide different writing class, consumers can and should expect different findings. Even
researchers with process-based, narrated, storied, data that is more closely related when a given set of data is collected and shared, different writers can generate
to the human experience. One can learn so much from another’s experience, and unique outcomes. This is because, for most qualitative researchers, reality is
from a good story. Yet, the degree of trust one has in the person telling the tale constructed. Therefore, the quantitative concept of validity is simply not a goal
has much to do with the degree of trust attributed to the telling. It is the same of qualitative research. It can’t be. Rather, qualitative researchers strive for the
with studies conducted from a qualitative research approach. Indeed, building less explicit goal of trustworthiness, which means that when readers interpret
trust is imperative. Fortunately, there have been the written work, they will have a sense of
several attempts by qualitative methodologists
to specify how trust in qualitative findings might
“Thick description”…intends that confidence in what the researcher has reported.
Still, even with that confidence, readers would
be conveyed and enhanced for consumers. But readers would be treated to texts so not expect to regenerate the exact findings in
be advised beforehand, even the construction of their own applications of the research.
trustworthiness is far from an exact procedure. This rich in details that the event or the Certain research procedures in which
column presents recommendations from several
research writers for developing and relying on trust
object of description is palpable. researchers engage create trustworthiness
within their research activity and in their
for another’s research findings, with particular reports. Lincoln and Guba (1985) rely on
focus on the academic success fields of developmental education and learning four general criteria in their approach to trustworthiness. These are credibility,
assistance. Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) seminal overview and organizational transferability, dependability, and confirmability. We consider each of these
scheme provides the main focus, and others’ work on trustworthiness is factors and add perspectives from others who have written on trustworthiness
synthesized and then integrated into the mix. in qualitative research.
Why Worry About Trustworthiness? Credibility and Trustworthiness
Reading reports of qualitative research can be a highly variable experience. The Credibility asks the “How congruent are the findings with reality?” As mentioned
methodologies that organize qualitative findings and the rhetorical structures previously, this is a highly subjective question, one that relies on individual
that guide writing are many. Some researchers make lists; others make maps. judgments. Asking about findings’ congruence in qualitative research is analogous
Some writers of qualitative research use a narrative approach and tell a “good with questions about internal validity in quantitative research. One is seeking to
story.” Others provide what has been described by Clifford Geertz (1973) as understand how the reported findings “hang together” in that the ideas should
“thick description.” With this term, he intends that readers would be treated share some relationship with each other. But unlike quantitative research, there
to texts so rich in details that the event or the object of description is palpable. is no expectation that all reactions to coherence credibility would result in the
Given such variety in method, and with multiple genre that do not adhere to same answer. Credibility is a construction on the part of the reporter(s) and the
a single organizational structure, readers must often stake their own claims subsequent reader(s).
about the writers’ thinking. These discourse transactions are always operating One method of promoting credibility is through the various processes
in any written communication. But readers who review a research report written of triangulation. Roughly stated, triangulating means using several sources
about a quantitative study, such as a study of a Supplemental Instruction pod of information or procedure from the field to repeatedly establish identifiable
for a college algebra course, can rely on a standard structure. Readers usually patterns. Recognizing similar outcomes repeatedly through various data sources
know what to expect in a research report, at least in terms of organization. So is a different phenomenon than replicability in an a priori empirical study. Multiple
where should learning assistance professionals and developmental educators forms of triangulation exist. These include Methodological triangulation, the use
as consumers of qualitative research hang their hats? Trustworthiness of the of more than one method of collecting or analyzing data (i.e., in a study of reading
research is one of those shared realities, albeit a subjective one, wherein readers demands in a gatekeeper course drawing upon a student survey, focus groups,
and writers might find commonality in their constructive processes. and class observations); (a) data triangulation, the use off more than a single type
Another characteristic of qualitative inquiry that may interfere with of data to establish findings (i.e., data from transcript audits, test scores, protocol
common interpretations is that, unlike quantitative studies, qualitative research analyses, all focused on the same phenomenon); (b) Investigator triangulation,
does not seek replicability. As an example, with an investigation of a basic writing the use of multiple researchers to complete comparative analyses of individual
corequisite class, the events and participants are understood to create unique findings (i.e., each member of a research team studying the effectiveness of
circumstances that the qualitative researcher documents, interprets, and writes an adjunct study strategy class fully evaluates the data from a source(s) and

26 JOURNAL of DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

draws conclusions to be shared and analyzed by team members); (c) Theoretical another. After all, if one cannot learn from study extensions that might fit with
triangulation, the use of multiple theoretical orientations to understand findings a subsequent set of circumstances, the impact from the original study is limited.
or to direct the research (i.e., employing social constructivism, transactional Just as it is valid and important to create new knowledge from emergent discovery-
theory, and poststructuralism to study the curriculum and instruction for a oriented qualitative research, it is also productive to seek understanding from
college reading class); and (d) Environmental triangulation, using more than one others’ systematic qualitative inquiry. It is with such intentions that an analogy
situation or context to study the intended focus (i.e., studying basic composition to both external validity and generalizability in quantitative research might be
instruction at several community colleges). Triangulation is the use of multiplicity productive. As with quantitative research, qualitative inquiry seeks to expand
to test the credibility of one’s research. understanding by transferring findings from one context to another. Of course,
Another way to pursue credibility is to involve informants (e.g., tutees, this can’t be apportioned by the researcher, but must be imputed by those who
tutors, and program coordinators from a writing center) in verifying researchers’ wish to compare the research with their personal contexts, as in “lessons from
interpretations after the fact. This has often been called member checking, where somewhere else.” For instance, reviewing research drawn from a learning to
“member” refers to various participants in multiple roles within a given qualitative learn class at Texas State University would be undertaken to develop greater
study. In fact, member checking from various roles and participation levels understanding of a learning to learn course at a similar institution in Texas.
within a given study is seen as a productive research practice. Often, research Transfer is only possible when a thick description provides a rich enough
participants are provided a pre-publication copy of research write-ups to portrayal of circumstance for application to others’ situations, and usually at the
solicit their feedback regarding the accuracy of data. Member checking can behest of the local constituents. Transfer applications such as these rely on the
also occur in face-to-face interviews. However, it is important to remember researchers’ thick descriptions that would include contextual information about
the various inherent power stances of participants and researchers and how the field work site. Organizations and other influential participants in the original
those relationships might influence sharing feedback as well as acquiescence study would have been stipulated and described in detail. Likewise, any precluded
to its recommendations. Similarly, peer debriefing with coresearchers and membership that would have influenced data collection would be documented.
colleagues can provide field-based researchers Methods and time frames for the collection of data
with noninvolved--or even detached--reactions to in the original study must be completely described,
initial research procedures and, subsequently, to
findings. Related to peer debriefing is the habit of
Member checking of any sort as well the entire duration of the field study. These
factors influence the degree to which the completed
institutional checking on research (e.g., permissions, should lead toward trust in the research may have application to an additional site
procedures, and findings) with supervisory or context. The bottom line for transfer is that the
personnel or direct superiors. Although one might researchers. lessons from one study, such as that of the student
regard IRB approval as a form of member checking, experience in a community community college site.
the previous suggestions are less formal than an That is, transfer in qualitative research is not a recipe,
evaluative gatekeeping relationship, and can help researchers shape practice but rather a suggestion that must itself be researched for its applicability to a new
and interpretations. Above all else, member checking of any sort should lead context.
twoa toward trust in the researchers.
Additional factors influence, indeed may impinge upon, the credibility Dependability as part of Trustworthiness
of qualitative inquiry. Prolonged engagement, at least for a complete cycle in A third perspective on trustworthiness offered by Lincoln and Guba (1985)
the life of the research context (e.g., an entire semester for a learning to learn is dependability, or the trust in trustworthy. In qualitative research in which
class) has long been recognized as desirable. Researchers would be engaged in researchers, both producers and consumers, actively build their trust in the
the site, with the participants, as well as with the external influences as these events as they unfold, there are a few concrete research practices that not only
unfold within a recognized or bounded time frame, and/or recursive cycle in produce trust but also feel trustworthy when they are executed. Peer debriefing
the context of events. It is reasonable to expect the researcher to become deeply or peer scrutiny are solid communication habits that create trust. Using another
familiar with recurring instances within a schedule. It is also important to point researcher to read and react to field notes, with their embedded researcher
out that observations conducted during a complete cycle would be regular, interpretations, is a confirmation that creates a tacit reality for the researcher.
persistent, and natural (from the point of view of the participants). During At its most oblique, one can muse “I may have made this up, but somebody
these long-term, persistent observations, researchers practice what is known as else saw it the same way, and that must mean something.” It is like asking for
reflexive self-analysis, often facilitated through daily jottings in research logs. participants to member-check but with peer-level members: The professional
Indeed, researchers are relentless in questioning their own findings, providing level of the peers conveys a sense of self-credibility. Also, since the scrutiny is
bracketed comments on any opinions and/or evaluative comments that may from a peer, it provides the researcher an insider analysis and feedback before
have found their way into what is intended to be “thick description” or notes the study goes public, itself an act of trust.
that include rich descriptive data. Of course, much of this learned behavior for Another aspect of dependability has to do with the researchers’ anticipation
trustworthiness, as well as that of write-ups, improves with experience. This is of review by a peer (in a sense not unlike the review process for a journal like the
particularly important for the profession as graduates from the fledgling doctoral Journal of Developmental Education or the Journal of Basic Writing). Presumably,
programs in the field assume the roles of neophyte researchers and translators awareness that the work and the products from the work are to be inspected by
of research to praxis. Time in the profession is an important factor in weighing a peer would cause the researcher to be careful with what is recorded as fact and
trustworthiness. what is set aside as researchers’ interpretive comments about the data. This habit
of data separation into observations and interpretations is called bracketing. That
Transferability in Trustworthiness such a practice as bracketing exists points to the pervasive effects of reflexive
A second factor for trustworthiness offered by Lincoln and Guba (1985) is analysis and the bracketing that the analysis induces. It is not the case that the
transferability. This proposition is somewhat tricky, given that by design qualitative researchers’ bracketed musings are devalued or in any way embarrassing, but
research does not (cannot) aim for replicability. Yet, qualitative researchers
maintain that patterns and descriptions from one context may be applicable to continued on page 28

VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 • FALL 2020 27

continued from page 27 that such reflexive analysis and the provide guidance in evaluating or revising the praxis of one’s own program. The
resulting bracketed comments reflect bottom line is that if a researcher or research team disseminating a qualitative
different processes within the research act. Part of the bracketing processes involve or action-oriented investigation does not fully demonstrate that the work is
researchers using their bias as it exists in interpretive repertoire. Researcher bias trustworthy, it is up to the consumer to follow the age old practice of “caveat
and assumptions are always present in the research act. It is naïve to think about emptor” or “Let the buyer beware.”
owning and discarding researcher bias. Qualitative research is much too subtle to
be able to partition researchers’ efforts. In fact, such control is not even desirable. References
Qualitative research needs researchers’ values and passion as engagement with Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, S. (2007). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide
to practitioner action research (2nd ed.). Corwin. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329574
research. But it is also necessary for researchers to monitor the influence of Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to
their values and passions. Being immersed in the research with their values theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon.
creates another level of trust, providing researchers are able to communicate their Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz
entailment in their own research. This is reflexive auditing, or who one is/was (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). Basic Books.
when active in an individual research project. Reflexive auditing, or describing the Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
involvement of the researcher in the decisions made in the research processes, is Robson, C., & McCartan, C. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley.
most characteristic of post positive research, and it is certainly a basic requirement
for an acceptable dissertation, research manuscript, or funded technical report.
Norman A. Stahl ([email protected]) is Professor Emeritus in the Department of
Confirmability as a part of Trustworthiness Curriculum and Instruction Education at Northern Illinois University, 536 Kendall
A fourth perspective on trustworthiness is confirmability, or getting as close Lane, DeKalb, IL 60115. James R. King is Professor Emeritus in the Department of
to objective reality as qualitative research can get. Childhood Education at University of South Florida,
Only some forms of qualitative research go there 2108 West Dekle Ave., Tampa, FL 33606.Correspon-
(e.g., emergent design positivism as described by Part of the bracketing dence concerning this column should be addressed to
Bogdan and Biklen [2003]). In order to subject one’s
research to auditing, there must be some objective
processes involve researchers Norman A. Stahl, 536 Kendall Lane, DeKalb, IL 60115.

reality present. Rather than constructing a reality using their bias as it exists in
in findings, qualitative researchers who believe and
pursue objectivity, rely on constructs like precision interpretive repertoire.
and accuracy in their research practice and the
involvement of other researchers. In these qualitative
circumstances it makes sense to aim for noninvolvement, least researchers
contaminate pristine, natural environments. As such, the use of confirmability is
a small, circumscribed intent within qualitative research, especially concerning
emergent design positivism. The Kellogg LITE 2020 seminar
Final Thoughts videos are now available for
Those who strive to promote students’ academic success realize that the world of
higher education today as well as one’s place in it is radically different than it was purchase!
but a decade ago. Between a culture of reform and the realities of a pandemic the
academic world does not rest on the foundation of bedrock once believed to exist.
With such change comes even more change, particularly for praxis. Hence,
it is even more important that, throughout the coming decade, educators be • Seminar Topics •
focused on practices (whether chosen or mandated) in order for the profession Adult Development and Learning Theory
to adopt fully a culture of research and evaluation. All forms of research, whether
quantitative, naturalistic, or action oriented, have important roles to play in Universal and Instructional Design
answering the pedagogical questions on praxis that face the field.
Indeed, each professional must adopt a research orientation either as an Working with Diverse Student Populations
investigator or as a consumer. Will just any study adequately inform one’s work?
Robson and McCartan (2016) point out that pure intentions in conducting Co-Requisite Course Design
research do not guarantee trustworthy finds. For research to have merit it must
be believable and be truthful. Although quantitative research requires researchers Integration of Online Support Services
to adhere to the principles of internal and external validity, in this column we
have focused on qualitative methods and the expectations for trustworthiness Technology for the 21st Century
as it guides research practice and the utilization of the findings.
Researchers need not be required to employ each of the methods for promoting
trustworthiness as specified throughout the column, but each investigator bears Indivi dual seminar- $ 7 5 • Ful l s eminar packag e- $ 4 0 0
the onus of demonstrating how the qualitative or action-oriented study meets ncde.appstate.edu/kellogg
standard conventions for trustworthiness so that the work might serve the needs
Questions- [email protected]
of those who are consumers of that research (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007).
Consumers of research should use the constructs of trustworthiness we covered
as foundational criteria when evaluating whether a particular investigation might

28 JOURNAL of DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION