Validity

In grounding qualitative research, validity receives more importance than reliability. Validity means that the research is sound and based on solid grounds. Internal validity implies that the data used for research are not affected by any external impacts and are consistent throughout the research. While external validity means that the result of a study can be applied to a wide number of situations, and not just to the case which is being considered for research. Ensuring that the thesis/dissertation is valid on both grounds is important. When you work with Research Gateway, you can be certain that the research conducted will have the highest degree of validity, and will never falter during cross checks by evaluators, thus guaranteeing better scores.

Errors in Validity:

Validity issue in qualitative research can be put forward as a question of whether the researchers see what they think they see. These three errors may occur while considering a set of data:

	To see a relation
	To see a principle
	Whether they are not correct and to reject them when they are correct.

One of the key issues in proving the validity of qualitative research is how to specify the link between relations that are under study and the version of them as submitted by the researcher.

	Ironic validity
	Paralogic validity
	Rhizomatic validity
	Sensual validity
	Procedural validity

The above methods must be applied after considering the type of analysis and relation between variables. Ironic validity seeks to find out the deviations, so it can be used to complement other methods. Rhizomatic validity works between networks and nodes, rather than in a straight line; so it is more suitable for complex problems which consist of many layers of data.

Reliability

Reliability of a statistical analysis conveys that a methodology being used for interpreting data is consistent and would give uniform results every time it is used. For qualitative research, we would discuss three different forms of reliability.

Quixotic Reliability: Quixotic reliability can be viewed as an attempt to measure how far a particular method can continuously lead to the same measurements and final results. However, many researchers and authors have rejected this approach of defining reliability as misleading and trivial.

Diachronic Reliability: Diachronic reliability is understood as the stability of measurements or observations in their temporal course. The issue here is the precondition that the phenomenon under study in itself may not undergo any changes, so that the criterion remains effective.

Synchronic Reliability: Synchronic reliability is the consistency of results collected at the same moment in time but by using different instruments. This criterion is most instructive when it is not fulfilled as viewed by various researchers. The issue then follows as to why this is the case and also brings out questions concerning the various perspectives on the issue resulting from different methods applied by numerous researchers.

Reliability becomes more important as a criterion for testing qualitative research only against a backdrop of a particular theory of the issue being researched and the use of methods. However, researchers can follow different techniques in order to increase the reliability of data and interpretation analysis.

A research can be said to be complete and successful only when it meets the criteria of being valid, as well as reliable. At the end of the analysis, it should finally come up with the result and solve the problems which it set out to do at the beginning