Methods and methodology are two different things. Think of the research as an operation - methods will be the tools you will use during the operation but methodology is the purpose and strategy that underlies the whole of the operation.

 

Qualitative instruments can be validated if we accept a more ample meaning for the word “validation”.  In Quantitative research, validation is about (a) reliability, in relation to the stability of the measures, and (b) validity: (b.1) construct validity, in relation to theoretical aspects of the model, and (b.2) content validity, related to the logical correctness of the model.

In Qualitative research, given that there is no model on the “correct” measurement (because there are very few measures, and many Qualitative aspects cannot be exactly measured), by analogy with Quantitative research, it is preferred to talk about 2 main issues: (1) the replicability of processes and results, and (2) the trustworthiness or research integrity, and (3) some other forms of processes created to guarantee the reproduction of results, and the researcher’s honesty.

Now, this does not mean that you cannot validate a qualitative instrument; it just means that you must validate it in a different way because you have no standardized measures to be applied.

 

PACING YOUR PROJECT APPROPRIATELY

• Keep actively engaged in your research.

• Provide enough space and time for the full development of each aspect of the research

• The progression between research steps should neither be rushed nor passive.

If you rush, you will not allow the necessary time and space to adequately develop the various steps and components of your investigation. It will lead the researcher to an early closure of analysis. The pressure of the institution (deadline) might not contribute to the researcher’s disposition or the development of habits.

On the other hand, lingering on certain aspects of the research because of hesitation, uncertainty or looking for perfection might lead the researcher to become bogged down in the early stages and the investigation will be constrained by a lack of dynamism. An approach to project pacing that reflects timidity will limit the development of the research, its potential to contribute to knowledge and theory development (Cutcliffe, 2003).

The balance throughout a research project between moving forward and advancing the research process, and on the other hand allowing adequate space and time for the full development of each aspect of the research is what the author calls “Active waiting”.

Are you pacing your project appropriately?  Ask yourself:

• Have I made reasonable efforts to be comprehensive in completing this component of the research?

• Is it possible that moving forward now will limit the quality of my project?

• Am I lingering unnecessarily (through timidity, perfectionism, or uncertainty of what to do next)?

The author clearly recognizes her desire to complete the project. She was in a rush. Time would have facilitated the development of a more comprehensive and robust accounting of the dimension of the analysis that she aimed to report.