Notes on:
Lather, P. (1986) 'Issues of Validity in
Openly Ideological Research: Between a Rock and a
Soft Place'. Interchange 17 (4):
63-84
Dave Harris
Validity needs to be reconsidered with openly
ideological research. Examples are feminist
research, 'neo- Marxist critical ethnography' and
'Freirian " empowering" research'.
Positivism has led to postpositivism, stressing
complexities of experience. Empirical
research is now in a ferment. If interest
free knowledge is impossible, should we announce
explicit interests? Does neutrality and
objectivity mystify ideology and legitimate
privilege? The issue is also to develop
emancipatory theory and inspire action rather than
'spinning obtuse webs of abstract "grounded
theory"'(64) [with Frankfurt school as an
example]. Gramsci advised us to develop a
'"praxis of the present"'to raise consciousness
among progressive groups, but neo-Marxist critical
ethnography is the most advanced in terms of
developing empirical approaches, especially in
schools. However it risks 'conceptual over
determinism: circular enforcement of theory by
experience conditioned by theory'. At the same
time, it is a corrective to [lazy science].
Bowles and Gintis and Apple
pioneered the approach showing the link between
schools and the needs of corporate capitalism, but
the oversocialized emphasis has been corrected
cents by studies of resistance [including Willis and
McRobbie]. We now need a clear strategy to
link theory and research, however, and there needs
to be more self reflexivity and self
criticism. This will produce 'a self
corrective element' against over interpretation,
amplified by being self critical about empirical
work. This is lacking in Freire and also in
some feminist research. We need to openly question
the trustworthiness of data, acknowledging 'the
essential indeterminacy of human experience', and
recognize the effects of personal bias. New
kinds of validity are required [presumably
'catalytic validity'].
[A discussion of validity ensues]. Construct
validity involves something measurable and
quantifiable, but these are usually substituted by
multiple regression and 'error of estimate
formulae' (66) [tests of significance?].
Factor analysis is often a substitute. Face
validity becomes a matter of 'rapport and public
relations'. Statistical manipulations
replace logical connections. Reliability
tends to substitute for validity. None of
these measures prevent 'consistent subjectivity'
nor guard against a 'the projections of social
biases'[including masculine binaries].
Recent discussions acknowledge the role played by
tacit knowledge and the failure of ready made
formulae. All we can do is to become
increasingly and 'vigorously self aware'.
Procedures to develop intersubjective agreement,
such as triangulation and member checks have been
recommended. What is needed is more
attention to justice as well.
We should be testing our own interpretations in
the spirit of falsification. Openly
ideological research can now take place, although
we need analysis of date or credibility to protect
research and theory 'from our enthusiasms'
(67). Researcher bias can be checked by:
triangulation to include different data sources
and methods, or to establish 'counter patterns as
well as convergences'; construct validity to avoid
imposing theories on a daily experiences - the
check here would be to show how theory has been
changed by the data; face validity and member
checks should be made integral and standard,
showing how findings are refined by subjects'
reactions; catalytic validity [coined by others
apparently] which can be understood in terms of
where the research leads to conscientization and
transformation. The last one is the most
controversial, but it does acknowledge that
research can change reality - and should. However
research designed to transform the world should
also pursue rigour.
Feminist research aims to correct the invisibility
and distortion of female experience in order to
tackle inequality. Gender is therefore the
fundamental category, while research attempts to
develop methods that establish 'pattern and
meaning' in women's experience. In the first
wave, this research was done within the
conventional paradigm, but the second wave 'is
more self consciously methodologically innovative'
(68). In one example, an action research
project on violence in the family led to a number
of interviews with volunteers which led to
policies to help victims of domestic abuse.
Life histories and 'guided consciousness raising'
showed 'principles of action and egalitarian
participation'. The aim was to empower the
oppressed. Another example, motherhood was
studied over time through interviews featuring
'"interactive self disclosure"'in collaborative
dialogue. These and other studies attempt to
reformulate understandings from the vantage point
of female experience.
One, by Gilligan, included a reworking of Kohlberg
on moral development, noting that the apparent
development of autonomy rather than
interrelatedness is 'androcentric', and stressing
contextual thinking rather than formal
abstraction. There was a challenge to
construct validity since the evidence referred to
originally was hypothetical rather than real
dilemmas but subsequent research dealt with a real
issue of abortion (69). The categories
apparently emerged from 'the language of
respondents', and there was no attempt to build an
abstract ethical position devoid of context.
Gilligan went on to develop triangulation of
methods, although she did not seek this
confirmation or counterpatterns.
Triangulation of data sources was not particularly
strong given the small sample. Different
theories were triangulated more effectively, so
that Gilligan worked with Kohlberg for example,
and her work was grounded in his original
scheme. Construct validity is based on
existing psychological and literary sources but
not in a systematic self reflexive way.
Catalytic validity is shown in the way in which
respondents move from conventional constructions
of the moral problem to a recognition of conflict,
but again this was not systematically
developed. Face validity is the weakest
aspect, since categories and conclusions were not
exposed to respondents. The trustworthiness
of the data is in doubt - different coding systems
showed no differences between the sexes, for
example. Gilligan and her team had developed
more open interviews using self definitions, and
stressed reflexivity, moving from explorations
into theory construction.
Neo Marxist critical ethnography aims to expose
the assumptions of liberal education to overcome
exploitation. School reproduces inequality
in all its complexities. Participants views
need to be established, traced and followed
through to consequences. Together this
should produce a more adequate theory of schooling
and make clear what is needed to undergo
transformation. Actors perceptions alone are
inadequate in obscuring false consciousness and
ideological mystification. However,
reductive determinism also needs to be
avoided. Examples include Sharp and Green
and Apple, or to examine resistance to the effects
of hierarchical work or established female roles
[McRobbie]. Teachers views are relevant in
affecting their life chances, and curricula cause
problems by omitting 'any sense of struggle and
oppression'.
.
Willis's Learning to Labour is the standard
work, here, using informal interviewing, group
discussions, diaries and participant observation
in and out of school. Some comparison
appeared through case studies. Theory was
important in searching for the contradictions
between explicit goals of enabling transcendence
of social position, and encouraging meritocratic
achievement, while the working class students
tended to disqualify themselves and saw their
lives as predetermined. The limits of
ethnography were to be corrected by theory,
discovering an underlying permanent class
struggle. Willis triangulated methods and
data, but contrasted liberal and Marxist
theories. His construct validity was
increased by collecting data at work and home as
well as school, but there is no systematic self
reflexivity, or indication of how his perspectives
were altered by that data. Catalytic
validity also emerged, but transformation was
minimal. Face validity occur is at the end
of the study when Willis discusses his results
with the lads - who were unimpressed by Marxist
theory. Main weaknesses include no self
reflexivity and no particular interest in
catalytic validity, at least when it came to
empowering the lads directly.
Rose developed some research based on Freire's
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, deliberately intended
to blur research, learning and action to develop
collective identification and solutions to
problems. Dialogue was central and subjects
were to become coresearchers. The research
process democratises knowledge and power rather
than imposing culture. The research is
supposed to lead to new perceptions by focusing on
issues that are of central importance to
participants. Several other studies have
used the same ideas (73). Swantz adopted a typical
approach in Tanzania, involving villagers
themselves in formulating problems and researching
solutions. Triangulation of methods and data
was strong. Construct validity was grounded
in a dialectic between theoreticians and
villagers. Catalytic validity was
established by examining the activism of pastoral
women and the demand for literacy. Face
validity took place as categories and conclusions
were fed back to participants. However there
was some 'subtle coercion and external imposition
'to get the villagers to study local resources,
and the team approach tended to dilute
reflexivity.
The case study shows and general issues
emerging. Methods should be 'non alienating,
at best empowering'(75) in order to avoid
exploitation by social researchers.
Academics can have a role as interpreters of the
world exposing false consciousness, but the point
is to 'demystify the world for the
dispossessed'. It is too easy to dismiss
resistance to Marxist interpretations as false
consciousness, but a lot of theory and jargon
remains in Marxist accounts. Examples of
Marxist research have ignored gender differences
between researchers and subjects, and there are
'tendencies to elitism and alienation engendered
by its own research methods' (76).
Participatory and feminist research stress face
and catalytic validity, despite Marxist
reservations about false consciousness and
ideology: it has to be admitted that 'commonsense
ways of looking at the world are permeated with
meanings that sustain our powerlessness'.
Critics are good at criticizing existing research
rather than developing empirical work of their own
based on lived experience facts are never
independent of theory, but we must guard the ways
in which investigator values enter research.
Empirical validation should be applied to our own
pet theories and we should be open to
counterinterpretations and general 'self - and
theoretical interrogation'.
Perhaps truth is not the issue, rather how
interesting the work is [shades of Deleuze here],
but we still need 'credibility checks'. This
can only be delivered by experimenting with new
practices of research rather than by referring to
'"armchair philosophers"'(77,quoting
Polkinghorne). Most commentators on research
agree on credibility checks, but there is no clear
direction. We might have to appeal to the
reader's experience, or pursue the effects on
social policy. A failure of mainstream
research is taken for granted, but we need an
alternative body of empirical work. Can
research offer multiple sorts of validity?
Is relativism 'our inevitable companion'? No
return to value free standards is available, but
we can adopt a more systematic approach to
triangulation and reflexivity and addressing all
types of validity.
Positivist paradigms are now seen as flawed in
terms of their validity, but we still need to
address the trustworthiness of data especially if
it is qualitative or impressionistic. We
need agreed workable ways of gathering data on
validity. We have to 'protect our work from
our own passions'. Some sort of soft rigour
or objective subjectivity 'may be the best that we
can do.'
back to Lather page
|
|