Reliability

Reliability, in the field of research, is broadly described as the dependability, consistency, and/or repeatability of a project's data collection, interpretation, and/or analysis. Reliability is viewed very differently in qualitative research from how it is viewed in quantitative research. In the quantitative domain, reliability is specifically characterized as the extent to which multiple researchers arrive at similar results when they engage in the same study using identical procedures. In these conditions, differences in results are described as measurement error. Therefore, from a quantitative perspective, reliability is specifically defined, sought, and measured, and it is accepted as an essential indicator of a study's quality (along with measures of validity and generalizability).

In contrast, because of the paradigmatic and methodological diversity of approaches that comprise the field, reliability has not been described with such uniformity in qualitative research. Whereas many qualitative researchers describe parallel concepts such as credibility, dependability, confirmability, and consistency as appropriate qualitative correlates to reliability, others avoid the purposeful quest for reliability altogether. Those who overtly seek credibility and dependability often assert that such aims support the rigor of qualitative work and ensure that studies avoid “haphazard” subjectivity. Three of the commonly cited indicators of credibility and dependability are methodological coherence (the appropriate and thorough [Page 754]collection, analysis, and interpretation of data), researcher responsiveness (the early and ongoing verification of findings and analyses with study participants), and audit trails (a transparent description of all procedures and issues relative to the research project). Such strategies are commonly employed by qualitative researchers to demonstrate systematic attention to reliability-related issues.

On the other hand, some have asserted that purposeful attempts to demonstrate reliability are counterintuitive to much of the work that emanates from the qualitative domain. They point to the interpretive subjective nature of qualitative work as a defining hallmark of the field—one that can be undermined by rigid reliability concerns. At the heart of this position is the notion of reflexivity. Whereas quantitative researchers (and some qualitative researchers) attempt to minimize—indeed eliminate—researcher effects so as to maintain objectivity, most qualitative researchers embrace the notion of reflexivity—the idea that researchers' backgrounds, interests, skills, and biases necessarily play unique roles in the framing of studies and in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Researchers are seen as visible, biased integral players in the process. This depiction of “researcher as instrument” in the project flows naturally with the claim that the richness and meaningfulness of qualitative research is largely dependent on its creativity and originality. Rather than seeking to standardize interview/testing procedures so that any researcher (who is detached and neutral) might gain the same results, the unique identities of both researchers and research participants are transparently identified and purposefully centered. Repeatability, from this perspective, is neither desired nor possible.

Therefore, it is evident that reliability, like many other concepts in qualitative research, is best approached on a case-by-case basis. Although many specific steps can be taken to support the credibility of one's research, such efforts should not compromise the deeper methodological and paradigmatic meanings that underpin this work.

...