Validity

There is a danger of intertwining the concepts of reliability and validity, so I'm attempting to address them in separate posts.  Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2013, pp. 177-99) devote a great deal of attention to the concept of validity, drawing on a variety of sources to lend weight and richness to the discussion.  Several of the points (p.180) raised are applicable to my research data:

• The natural setting is the principle source of data
• Context-boundedness and 'thick description'
• Data are socially situated
• The researcher is part of the researched world
• The researcher - rather than the research tool - is the key instrument of research
• The data are descriptive
• There is a concern for processes rather than simply with outcomes (inherent in my choice of action research)
• Data are analysed inductively rather than using a priori categories
• Data are presented in terms of the respondents rather than researchers

There are some points to beware of that might undermine the validity of my research - I will also list how these can be addressed:

• Reactivity (internal validity) - I am aiming to improve the processes involved in the learning programs; this should not affect the data for previous cohorts, although the current cohort could potentially be affected by knowing that they are being observed.  This also touches on the issue of Researcher bias mentioned by the authors
• Concensual validity (external) - since I am undertaking this research as a learning experience, will 'competent others' dismiss my findings due to my inexperience, or because they think I'm simply forcing the data to fit so that I pass my assessment?

Triangulation is dealt with as a means of ensuring validity.  Newby (2010, pp. 121-3) also mentions this technique, although in somewhat less detail.  So to what extent do my research methods yield themselves to this?

• Time triangulation - I have used the same method for a number of cohorts, although this effect may be diminished because I did not carry out the survey for each group immediately following their participation, so earlier groups may not recall their experiences as accurately.
• Theoretical triangulation - since I have avoided basing my questions on one particular theory, there is the opportunity to compare the results from the point of view of competing theories for social and online learning.
• Investigator triangulation - the data are recorded electronically, so potentially other researchers could give their own interpretations.
• Methodological triangulation - the same method has been used on different groups, so I can easily compare the results of each group to consider how well the results support conclusions for each group.

General points that have contributed to validity on this project:

• Choosing an appropriate methodology for answering the research question - action research.  This has ensured that the focus is on processes - not outcomes, which I might be interested in unfairly interpreting!
• Selecting appropriate instrumentation - using online questionnaires allowed the data to be gathered according to the time needs of respondents, and allowing them access to reminders (their forum postings) whilst responding to questions.

Limitations here include:

• Sampling - by not requiring participation in the survey, I sacrificed control over sample sizes, which could potentially limit the validity (and reliability) of results.  However I considered that sensitivity to participants' wishes was of greater importance in this case, since some people are uncomfortable with the use of online forums in the first place.

Overall I believe I have sufficiently addressed issues of validity, but there are clearly many others that I have not encountered yet, including the points concerning data interpretation.

References

• Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education.
• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.