A comment on Validity and Reliability in Visual Methods

A comment on Validity and Reliability in Visual Methods

 

According to Prosser (2002, 97), social research has indirectly marginalised Image-based Research in its aim to prove its ‘research credentials’.  The methodological practice of emphasising the role of words at the expense of images in qualitative research has compounded this situation. Validity and reliability are measures of the accuracy of quantitative research in a variety of fields, however, these terms transfer imperfectly when referring to visual methods in qualitative research.  In Golafshani’s paper, Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research (2003, 597), she questions the usefulness of reliability, viability and triangulation, as used in quantitative research, and highlights the need to adapt these methods to fit within the qualitative paradigm.  

Kirk and Miller (1986, 20) point out that perfect reliability does not guarantee validity but ‘perfect validity, on the other hand, would assure perfect reliability’.  Indeed, according to Golafshani (2003, 600), more appropriate criteria for qualitative research are ‘credibility, transferability and trustworthiness’.  Winston (2002, 66) points out that any photographic image is not a single truth, but a ‘continuum of authenticity’, which relies on multiple relationships between the subject of the photograph, the context of the photograph, and the ‘manipulations and interventions of the photographer.’   Validity is, therefore, reliant on the researcher’s awareness of these factors.  When the researcher is the photographer, reflexivity and in depth knowledge of the subject is essential.  Adelman describes this as follows:

For the researcher the pursuit of internal validity for the photo document entails; informed selection of what to document, being systematic through reflection in the taking of photographs whether one approves or disapproves of the action being recorded, justified sampling, low reactivity of the subject’s presence of the photographer, ‘normal’ printing, no editing, argued inclusion as evidence in a research report/and or presentation – whether the medium is photo, slide, film, video, CS ROM and so on (2002, 151).

In conclusion, the traditional terms of validity and reliability are contentious when used within the visual research and qualitative research paradigms.  However, in order to prove the ‘credentials’ of visual research accountability is essential and relies on the reflexivity of the researcher, independent of the terminology used.

References:

Adelman, C. (2002) ‘Photocontext’ in Image-based Research:  A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. ed. by Prosser, J. Abingdon:  RoutledgeFalmer, 148-161 

Golafshani, N. (2003) ‘Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’.  The Qualitative Report 8 (4) pp. 597-607 [online]. Available from <http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf>

Kirk, J. and Miller, M. (1986) ‘Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’.  Qualitative Research Methods 1 London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Prosser, J. (2002) Image-based Research:  A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. ed. by Prosser, J. Abingdon:  RoutledgeFalmer

Winston, B. (2002) ‘The Camera Never Lies: The Partiality of Photographic Evidence’ in Image-based Research:  A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. ed. by Prosser, J.  Abingdon:  RoutledgeFalmer, 60-68