Validity, responsibility, and aporia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this article, the author problematizes external, objectified, oversimplified, and mechanical approaches to validity in qualitative research, which endorse simplistic and reductionist views of knowledge and data. Instead of promoting one generalizable definition or operational criteria for validity, the author's "deconstructive validity work" addresses how validity can be framed in the context of researchers' responsibility and decision making during the research process. More specifically, the author utilizes the concept of aporia to discuss researchers' responsibilities in the face of impossible decisions when aiming for "valid" and trustworthy qualitative research practices. The author argues that qualitative researchers should reconsider the promotion of validity or validation practices that disable researchers' responsibility. Alternatively, it could be illuminative to ask how impossible validity and ongoing puzzlement associated with the quality of qualitative research could influence current research practices and reporting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)603-610
Number of pages8
JournalQualitative Inquiry
Volume16
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

responsibility
qualitative research
research practice
research process
promotion
decision making

Keywords

  • aporia
  • qualitative research
  • responsibility
  • validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anthropology
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Validity, responsibility, and aporia. / Koro-Ljungberg, Mirka.

In: Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 8, 2010, p. 603-610.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e74873b4a10547c5bf4623cf9517d33e,
title = "Validity, responsibility, and aporia",
abstract = "In this article, the author problematizes external, objectified, oversimplified, and mechanical approaches to validity in qualitative research, which endorse simplistic and reductionist views of knowledge and data. Instead of promoting one generalizable definition or operational criteria for validity, the author's {"}deconstructive validity work{"} addresses how validity can be framed in the context of researchers' responsibility and decision making during the research process. More specifically, the author utilizes the concept of aporia to discuss researchers' responsibilities in the face of impossible decisions when aiming for {"}valid{"} and trustworthy qualitative research practices. The author argues that qualitative researchers should reconsider the promotion of validity or validation practices that disable researchers' responsibility. Alternatively, it could be illuminative to ask how impossible validity and ongoing puzzlement associated with the quality of qualitative research could influence current research practices and reporting.",
keywords = "aporia, qualitative research, responsibility, validity",
author = "Mirka Koro-Ljungberg",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1177/1077800410374034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "603--610",
journal = "Qualitative Inquiry",
issn = "1077-8004",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity, responsibility, and aporia

AU - Koro-Ljungberg, Mirka

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - In this article, the author problematizes external, objectified, oversimplified, and mechanical approaches to validity in qualitative research, which endorse simplistic and reductionist views of knowledge and data. Instead of promoting one generalizable definition or operational criteria for validity, the author's "deconstructive validity work" addresses how validity can be framed in the context of researchers' responsibility and decision making during the research process. More specifically, the author utilizes the concept of aporia to discuss researchers' responsibilities in the face of impossible decisions when aiming for "valid" and trustworthy qualitative research practices. The author argues that qualitative researchers should reconsider the promotion of validity or validation practices that disable researchers' responsibility. Alternatively, it could be illuminative to ask how impossible validity and ongoing puzzlement associated with the quality of qualitative research could influence current research practices and reporting.

AB - In this article, the author problematizes external, objectified, oversimplified, and mechanical approaches to validity in qualitative research, which endorse simplistic and reductionist views of knowledge and data. Instead of promoting one generalizable definition or operational criteria for validity, the author's "deconstructive validity work" addresses how validity can be framed in the context of researchers' responsibility and decision making during the research process. More specifically, the author utilizes the concept of aporia to discuss researchers' responsibilities in the face of impossible decisions when aiming for "valid" and trustworthy qualitative research practices. The author argues that qualitative researchers should reconsider the promotion of validity or validation practices that disable researchers' responsibility. Alternatively, it could be illuminative to ask how impossible validity and ongoing puzzlement associated with the quality of qualitative research could influence current research practices and reporting.

KW - aporia

KW - qualitative research

KW - responsibility

KW - validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956531426&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956531426&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1077800410374034

DO - 10.1177/1077800410374034

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 603

EP - 610

JO - Qualitative Inquiry

JF - Qualitative Inquiry

SN - 1077-8004

IS - 8

ER -