Visual
Sociology:
A Comment on Validity and Reliability…
Firstly the terms Validity and
Reliability must be defined: Reliability is the degree of consistency between
two measures of the same thing (Mehrens &
Lehman, 1987) and shows the
measure of how stable, dependable, trustworthy, and consistent a test is in
measuring the same thing each time (Worthen
et al., 1993). Validity is related to truthfulness: Does the test measure
what it purports to measure?; the extent to which certain inferences can be
made from test scores or other measurement (Golafshani
2003:597; Mehrens & Lehman, 1987), and the degree to which they
accomplish the purpose for which they are being used. (Worthen et al., 1993).
There
are several types of validity, concerning visual sociology and photography,
content and construct validity would rate quite highly. Content validity refers to the extent to
which the content of a test's items represents the entire body of content to be
measured. Context validity refers to abstract ideas that humans construct in
their minds to help them explain observed patterns or differences in the
behavior of themselves or other people or what they may observe (Davies & Dodds 2000:281). A construct is an unobservable, postulated
attribute of individuals created in our minds to help explain or theorise about
human behavior. Since constructs do not exist outside the human mind, they are
not directly measurable (Cresswell &
Miller 2000:129). However in the vein of visual sociology and photography
in general content and construct validity of images can be determined through
reflexivity. So in conjunction with reflexivity, validity in this statement
refers to what Prosser (1998) notes should be “interactive, dialectical, collaborative logic” (Prosser 1998:104). Thus
reflexivity seeks to make explicit the process and functions involved in the
production of visual data and their subsequent findings, in an attempt to
produce validity and add reliability to the visual measure of images used for
data (Chaplin 1994:1).
So
from this it can be seen that gaining these valued measures (by some) within
this type of research is difficult and criticisms of this method mainly lie in
the views that because of the nature or the equipment and close proximity
involved in getting the data, this automatically alters social phenomenon,
particularly behavior. However, even
within the hard sciences and social science the laboratory experiment can be
said to have the same problematic criticisms. One the other side of the coin
value judgments and personal (however sub-conscious) bias, along with an
influential factor in selective knowledge can all have an effect and play a
part in the creation of an image (Winston 2002:
). So locating where the ‘self’ is in social practice, language and
discourse is vitally important to the research process. This all falls back to
the notion that reality is distorted by and for artistic reasons and this is
true, however as in many other practices purpose must be separated and
defined. Using a camera does not
automatically denote artistic pursuits…
Image-based
Research has been argued to be more subjective and therefore less valid and
reliable and more prone to manipulation than 'word-orientated' qualitative research.
However, Prosser (1998) explains that this is certainly not the case, and that
in fact both research types are confronted by the same issues(Prosser
1998:97-9). As discussed above the laboratory
experiment faces generalisation to the wider population issues and all research
no matter if visual of written depend how the evidence is interpreted by the
researcher, and there are always more than one way of seeing things not matter
how objective the researcher aims to be. Thus, the researcher conducting word based
research – which depends on texts, interviews and various kinds of evidence –
can look at a subject from various perspectives, selectivity here is produced
by the choices the researcher makes when choosing which sources to use. These different sources, all containing their
own interpretations, contributing a variety of interpretations, which the
researcher will then surmise their own. Perhaps the summarised conclusions of various
written texts compared to a picture is more malleable in terms of
interpretation? Regardless, the point being that visual methods can be as
reliable and valid as any other type of method, using reflexivity to increase awareness
and objectivity. An important point to
note is that a good piece of research depends wholly on the researcher choosing
the most appropriate method to conduct it.
The level
of validity and reliability in image-based research can be effectively
increased by using multiple visual data to provide evidence of repeated occurrences
of social phenomenon, and a wide breadth of techniques to ensure an allowance
of possible differing interpretations of a single phenomenon. However, reliability will always be an issue
in qualitative research society is not stable, and as culture evolves over
time, so do ideas, customs and relationships (Winston 2000:66).
REFERENCES
Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000).
Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39(3), 124-131.
Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative
research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health
research, 12(2), 279-289.
Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The
Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December 2003 597-607
Mehrens, W. A. & Lehmann, I. J.
(1987). Using standardized tests in
education. New York: Longman.
Prossor, J (1998) Image Based Research: A Sourcebook
for the Qualitative Researcher. Abington: RoutledgeFalmer.
Winston, B (2002) ‘The
Camera Never Lies: The Prtiallity of Photographic Evidence’, in Image Based
Research: A Sourcebook for the Qualitative Researcher. Ed, by Prosser, L.
(1998) Abington: RoutledgeFalmer, 60-68.
No comments:
Post a Comment