I was having a little problem understanding what exactly was
being referred to as “validity” during the project presentations. I finally
figured out it was a difference in discourses (surprise!). My discipline has
taught me these discourses around validity constructs:
·
Face validity – the degree to which a measure
seems to be measuring what it is intended to measure
·
Content validity – how well a measure covers the
range of meaning associated with a concept
·
Predictive validity – how well a measure is
associated with future behaviors, etc.
·
Construct validity – how well a measure of a
concept is associated with a measure of another concept of a theory that it
should be associated with
·
Internal validity – agreement between a study’s
conclusions about causal connections and what is actually true (I figured out I
was getting closer to the class objective with this one)
Needless to say, I was hearing validity with my
“measurement” ears and I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to be addressing. My bookshelf, however, contains a nice
selection of research methodology resources and in Action Research (McNiff and Whitehead, 2006) I found this: “…when
we claim our theory has “validity” we say it has truth value and is
trustworthy… (has been) demonstrated as having truth value through a rigorous
process of public critique” (Pp20-21).
McNiff and Whitehead (2006), discuss the researcher’s
validity by raising questions about whether a “practitioner is competent to
judge their own work and how they will assure the “watching public” that their
findings are credible and trustworthy.” To do this the practitioner/evaluator
must make their “evaluation processes visible and show that (processes) are
rigorous and robust, and produce strong evidence to show that they as
practitioner-researchers are competent and capable” (p. 70). My methodology entailed having the class
“discover” the text alongside me in order to make the processes visible. My
qualifications as a research-practitioner, while frequently referenced in
class, were not explicitly stated in the presentation. Further reading discussed “claims-making” and
how the researcher’s awareness of validity threats and attempts to control for
those are documented. It is important
for the researcher-practitioner to articulate the values that inspired the
work, as well.
I began to understand that I needed to ask myself – why did
I choose this topic? After giving that some thought, I came up with the
following, which I hope will address my bias and improve the validity of my
analysis.
Scholarly activity and research are essential activities of
the university, as is teaching, creative expression and service. A review of evaluation practices show a mix of
¼ service and ¾ teaching and research are generally acceptable, teaching
success demonstrated by class loads, evaluations, etc., and research by publications and/or funding. “Scholarly activity and research” for teaching
faculty have, largely, been measured by the number of quality
publications. My claim: There is a
culture shift wherein “funded” research is being weighted more heavily in
importance than ever before. Dollars count. Why is this important to me? I am
not a tenure/tenure-track faculty, nor am I evaluated by the same standards as tenured
faculty, so what is in it for me? I realized this had to do with my values and
beliefs.
I am a student of organizational culture and change
management. I gravitate towards looking at things through a cultural lens.
Throughout my career, I have worked to create environments that can bridge
workplace obstacles so that people can “do what they are there to do” – yes, I
think I can say I coined that in as much as any of us “coin” commonsense. I am also a “research practitioner” meaning I
do research within the organizational structure of the university – and
routinely navigate all of the requisite policies and procedures. I know what it
means from a practitioner point of view to conduct research within the
university structure. I know how time-consuming and confusing the system can be.
I am aware of what supports are
available and what ones are lacking or non-existent.
My bias? – concern
about how this culture shift is going to be managed – about how the
organization is going to address the problem of a lack of infrastructure to
support the expectation for faculty to pursue ever greater amounts of “funded”
research – and all layers that go with that expectation. How do my concerns affect my study? I am motivated
to do something, like maybe raise my voice in the context of my project. But I have tried to do so in such a way that
other “experts” can draw their own conclusion about the discourse in Theme
II.
Thanks for reading....susangale
