JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

AND TECHNOLOGY
BACHELOR OF LAWS
YEAR THREE SEMESTER TWO
LSC 2314, ADVANCED LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING

ISAAC MUTUGI PHILOMENA- LSG201-C002-0042/2021

 ADVANCED LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING

ASSIGMENT ONE

During the presentation of your proposal to undertake a research project, which will be
based on documentary review and semi-structured or in-depth interviews, you feel that you
have dealt well with the relationship between the purpose of the research and the proposed
methodology when one of the panelists leans forward and asks you to discuss the
trustworthiness and usefulness of your work for other researchers. This is clearly a
challenge to see whether you can defend such an approach. How would you respond?

In qualitative research, establishing the trustworthiness and usefulness of a study is paramount to

ensuring its credibility and relevance. The proposed research, which will rely on documentary
review and semi-structured or in-depth interviews, aims to provide a rich, contextual
understanding of the research topic. This approach is particularly valuable for exploring complex
phenomena that cannot be easily quantified or understood through statistical analysis alone.
However, as qualitative research often challenges conventional norms of data collection and
analysis, it is essential to demonstrate how this methodology can produce reliable, valid, and
meaningful results

Trustworthiness

A researcher conducting his research based on documentary review and semi-structured or

indepth interviews, as Jason Loh suggested, should ask himself the following questions to
establish the credibility, trustworthiness and usefulness to the readers of his work:

How valid is this approach? How valid is the analysis of the data? How valid and
reliable is the collection of these “stories,” and how can a story be valid as an analysis?
If the data is collected through the participants’ telling of their “storied experiences,”
how do I know if they are being truthful? What if they made up a story or embellish the
retelling? Will the research be valid then?1

1
J Loh, 'Inquiry into Issues of Trustworthiness and Quality in Narrative Studies: A Perspective' (2013) The
Qualitative Report https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260312062 accessed 18 December 2024.

1
Trustworthiness is one way researchers can persuade themselves and readers that their research
findings are worthy of attention.2 Lincoln and Guba (1985) refined the concept of trustworthiness
by introducing the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to
parallel the conventional quantitative assessment criteria of validity and reliability. 3 Credibility
addresses the “fit” between respondents’ views and the researcher’s representation of them. 4 To
achieve dependability, researchers can ensure the research process is logical, traceable, and
clearly documented.5 When readers are able to examine the research process, they are better able
to judge the dependability of the research. Confirmability is concerned with establishing that the
researcher’s interpretations and findings are clearly derived from the data, requiring the
researcher to demonstrate how conclusions and interpretations have been reached.6

Usefulness
Jason Loh asks-If a narrative study is about the participant’s particularized meaning-making
interpretations, then how can it be of any relevance or use to the consumers of this study? If the
study is not of use, then what is the raison d’etre of the study?7 A work of research must have its
use, relevance and utility not only to the members of the research community but also to the
community at large.

A number of scholars have attempted to come up with criteria to test the usefulness of research.
Eisner (1998) outlines three criteria for evaluating the usefulness of a study, specifically its
"instrumental utility." First, comprehension refers to the study’s ability to help us understand a
situation that might otherwise be confusing or unclear. Second, anticipation involves providing
descriptions and interpretations that offer insights beyond the information already available,
helping us foresee or predict outcomes. Third, the study serves as a guide or map, offering
explanations and directions that deepen and broaden our experience, and aiding us in

2
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3
Ibid.
4
T Koch, 'Establishing Rigour in Qualitative Research: The Decision Trail' (1994) 19 Journal of Advanced Nursing
976, 986.
5
GA Tobin and CM Begley, 'Methodological Rigour within a Qualitative Framework' (2004) 48 Journal of Advanced
Nursing 388, 396.
6
DE White, ND Oelke and S Friesen, 'Management of a Large Qualitative Data Set: Establishing Trustworthiness of
the Data' (2012) 11 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 244, 258.
7
Ibid, note 1.

2
understanding what we are observing. These criteria emphasize the practical utility of research in
enhancing understanding and guiding further exploration.8

Research based on documentary review and interviews can provide rich, nuanced insights that
contribute both to theory and practice. Documentary analysis helps situate the findings within a
broader historical or contextual framework9, while interviews provide contemporary perspectives
that enrich the understanding of the topic. To ensure usefulness, the research should aim to
answer relevant questions, contribute to current debates, and offer insights that can inform policy
or practice. By demonstrating trustworthiness through rigorous methods and ensuring that the
findings have practical applications, the research can be considered useful to both the academic
community and wider stakeholders, including policymakers and practitioners.10

ASSIGNMENT TWO

Having quizzed you about the trustworthiness and usefulness of your work for other
researchers, the panelist decides that one more testing question is in order. The member
explains that qualitatively based work isn’t an easy option; “It is not an easier alternative
for those who want to avoid statistics”. “How can we be sure that you’re competent to get
involved in interview work, especially where the external credibility of this organization
may be affected by the impression that you create in the field?”, the panelist asks. How
would you respond to this concern?

In response to the panelist’s concern, I would first acknowledge that qualitative research,
particularly in the context of interview-based methodologies, is by no means a less rigorous or
less demanding approach compared to quantitative research. Rather, it requires a different kind
of intellectual and methodological precision. The task of eliciting rich, contextually meaningful
data through interviews is, in fact, fraught with complexities that necessitate high levels of
competence, such as the ability to navigate intricate interpersonal dynamics, maintain ethical
integrity, and interpret nuanced narrative data effectively.

8
EW Eisner, The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice (Prentice Hall
1998).
9
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10
SJ Tracy, 'Qualitative Quality: Eight "Big-Tent" Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research' (2010) 16 Qualitative
Inquiry 837, 851.

3
First, it is crucial to rapidly develop rapport with the interviews especially during in-depth
interviews11 and developing rapport in in-depth interviews is a critical element that underpins the
efficacy of qualitative research, particularly when co-constructing meaning with participants
about sensitive topics. Rapport refers to the establishment of trust, mutual respect, and a safe
environment conducive to candid dialogue.12 Unlike ethnographic methods, where rapport
develops over time, in-depth interviews necessitate the interviewer’s ability to rapidly build a
positive relationship with the interviewee. This is vital to elicit authentic, unmediated responses
that reflect the interviewee’s personal experiences and perspectives.13

The process of rapport-building unfolds in distinct stages, including apprehension, 14 exploration,

cooperation, and participation.15 Initially, the apprehension phase involves a degree of
uncertainty, where both parties are unfamiliar with each other. My task as the interviewer is to
initiate the conversation with open-ended, non-threatening questions that allow the interviewee
to begin articulating their experiences. As the interview progresses, the interviewer’s responses
—often in the form of reflective prompts—serve to clarify or enrich the interviewee's narrative,
without steering or distorting it. This iterative approach to questioning helps ensure the data
remains grounded in the interviewee’s own vocabulary and understanding. Effective rapport-
building fosters an atmosphere of cooperation and participation, facilitating a deeper, more
nuanced exploration of the research topic. Ultimately, rapport is the foundation upon which the
integrity of the interview process rests, allowing for the co-creation of knowledge that reflects
the genuine meaning of the interviewee’s lived experience.16

Second, in-depth interview process is a deeply personal and intimate interaction, typically
structured to allow the interviewer to guide the conversation while maintaining focus on the
research objectives.17 Traditionally, this framework positions the interviewer as an objective
observer and the interviewee as the subject, with their social roles largely separated. However,

11
Douglas J. Creative Interviewing. Beverly Hills, California: Sage 1985.
12
Miller W, Crabtree B. Depth interviewing. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 1999;89–107.
13
Ibid.
14
Spradley J. Asking Descriptive Questions. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
1979;78–91.
15
Rubin H, Rubin I. Listening, hearing and sharing social experiences. Qualitative Interviewing: the Art of Hearing
Data. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 2005; 1–18.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid(note 11).

4
feminist scholars critique this model, arguing that it overlooks the power dynamics inherent in
the interview process and risks reinforcing oppressive structures. Instead, feminist approaches
emphasize reflexivity, urging researchers to critically engage with their own social roles and
acknowledge the power imbalances between themselves and their participants. 18 A notable
example of this is Anderson’s study, where she interviewed Chinese and Anglo-Canadian
women with diabetes, and participants, aware of her dual role as a nurse and researcher, asked
for clinical advice. Anderson responded by providing the information requested, fostering a
reciprocal relationship that both strengthened trust and enriched the data. 19 While some might
argue that this compromises objectivity, such reciprocity, common in feminist and participatory
action research, highlights the importance of reducing power distances between researcher and
participant, fostering a more collaborative exchange and ensuring that the research is ethically
grounded and reflective of participants’ lived experiences. This is the model I would use to make
my research more effective.

Third, qualitative data analysis, like its quantitative counterpart, is rigorous and systematic, often
occurring concurrently with data collection. It involves iterative processes where emerging
themes and categories inform the research questions and sampling until saturation is reached.
Methods like grounded theory, coding, and the template approach help categorize and interpret
data, while the immersion/crystallization method relies on deep, reflective engagement. 20 Unlike
the structured numerical analysis in quantitative research, qualitative analysis focuses on context
and meaning but is no less rigorous in its pursuit of understanding, relying on well-established
strategies to ensure validity and reliability. This, I’ll take into consideration and give it no less
attention and conscientiousness that I would to quantitative data analysis.

Finally, ensuring clear and ongoing communication of the research intent is an essential ethical
practice, especially when the study’s outcomes may evolve as new data emerges. It is crucial that
participants verbally consent multiple times throughout the research process, reinforcing their

18
Ribbens J, Edwards R, eds. Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 1998;46–
75.
19
Atkinson P, Coffry A. Revisiting the relationship between participant observation and interviewing. In: Gubrium J,
Holstein J, eds. Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 2002;801–
14.
20
Borkan J. Immersion ⁄ crystallisation. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage 1999;179–94.

5
right to disengage at any point. 21 This not only respects their autonomy but also ensures ethical
integrity. By demonstrating such competencies—carefully managing consent, maintaining
transparency, and adhering to ethical guidelines—the credibility of the researcher is upheld, and
the organization’s reputation remains intact. 22 These practices ensure that the research is both
trustworthy and respectful, ultimately preserving the integrity of the investigation and the
institution involved.

REFERENCES
1. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Koch, T. (1994). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 19, 976–986.
3. Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative
framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388–396.
4. White, D. E., Oelke, N. D., & Friesen, S. (2012). Management of a large qualitative data
set: Establishing trustworthiness of the data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
11, 244–258. doi:10. 1177/160940691201100305
5. J Loh, 'Inquiry into Issues of Trustworthiness and Quality in Narrative Studies: A
Perspective' (2013) The Qualitative Report
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260312062> accessed 14 December 2024.
6. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
8. SJ Tracy, 'Qualitative Quality: Eight "Big-Tent" Criteria for Excellent Qualitative
Research' (2010) 16 Qualitative Inquiry 837, 851.
9. Douglas J. Creative Interviewing. Beverly Hills, California: Sage 1985.
10. Miller W, Crabtree B. Depth interviewing. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, eds. Doing
Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 1999;89–107.
21
Creswell J. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage 1998;118–20.
22
Germain C. Ethnography the method. In: Munhall P, ed. Nursing Research. 3rd edn. Boston: Jones & Bartlett
2001;277–306.

6
11. Rubin H, Rubin I. Listening, hearing and sharing social experiences. Qualitative
Interviewing: the Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 2005; 1–18.
12. Spradley J. Asking Descriptive Questions. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston 1979;78–91.
13. Ribbens J, Edwards R, eds. Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage 1998;46–75.
14. Atkinson P, Coffry A. Revisiting the relationship between participant observation and
interviewing. In: Gubrium J, Holstein J, eds. Handbook of Interview Research: Context
and Method. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 2002;801–14.
15. Creswell J. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 1998;118–20.
16. Germain C. Ethnography the method. In: Munhall P, ed. Nursing Research. 3rd edn.
Boston: Jones & Bartlett 2001;277–306.