Trusting Feminist Reports

The explicitly emancipatory aim of feminist research, its divergence from traditional research approaches, and others' investments in the claim that science is an objective practice have led some to question the credibility of feminist research. Many feminist researchers continue to follow a checklist of traditional criteria to demonstrate the quality of their work. Researchers use systematic procedures and immerse themselves in the field and in data analysis to ensure they have considered the phenomenon of interest in depth. In writing up their reports, they support their findings with substantive data from interviews, observations, and documents to allow readers to understand and evaluate their interpretive processes. In addition, they might use triangulation (taking into account multiple data sources, methods, theories, or researchers); audit trails (records of data gathering and analytic procedures); and peer debriefing (processing findings with peers). Recording and transcribing interviews can facilitate researchers' immersion in the rhythm of and emotion in participants' speech.

Some common qualitative validity criteria lend themselves to the mission of feminist inquiry. For example, Lather and Smithies (1977) used member checking (asking participants to review data or findings for accuracy) to ensure participants could provide feedback on how their lives were represented. Depending on its purpose, a valid feminist study must reflect the guiding principles of feminist inquiry. Readers might begin with the following questions to consider the validity of a feminist study.

1. Do the researchers scrutinize and shed light on gendered structures of social life and research practice?
2. Do the researchers capture the voices of marginalized groups or social processes that contribute to their marginalization?
3. Do the researchers provide detailed data to substantiate their findings and interpretations that offer insights into the phenomenon of interest?
4. Do the researchers employ reflexivity and equitable and ethical research practices that are attentive to power inequities? Do the researchers consider the implications of their findings for the groups under study?
5. Does the research contribute to social critique and facilitate action against oppressive beliefs or systems?

Others use traditional criteria as critical vehicles to reflect rigorously on their data and findings. For example, one measure of validity is seeking discrepant cases (examples that contradict findings) in the data set. Cases that do not fit common patterns do not necessarily indicate problems with the initial analysis; rather, they invite researchers to revisit their data, tease out meaningful tensions, and ponder alternative explanations. In this sense, using traditional measures to reflect on a study serves less as an endpoint and more as a springboard to delve deeper into the phenomena of interest.

However, many critical researchers are uncomfortable with such validity checklists as that just listed because they were developed within a positivist paradigm that views the enactment of systematic procedures as an assurance that research findings are true and certain. Although some techniques can be adopted for critical purposes, numerous critical researchers argue that a “one size fits all” approach to validity is reductive because research purposes and practices are not homogenous. For example, a feminist's assertions of validity using traditional criteria—for example, use of systematic procedures, triangulation, and audit trails—will have little meaning if the researcher dehumanizes participants or fails to engage in reflexive practices.

The diversity of contemporary qualitative research has inspired a proliferation of validity categories that transgress traditional forms. For example, some researchers use catalytic validity, a form of validity associated with critical research projects intended to provide catalysts for social change. Its premise is straightforward, but its actualization is more complex: if the research purpose is to improve curriculum and empower students in a given classroom, the researcher must demonstrate that curriculum was improved and students were empowered to meet catalytic validity criteria. In this view, following a rote procedural checklist cannot ensure that critical research will accomplish its purpose: to facilitate critique and change. Validity practices, like other aspects of contemporary qualitative inquiry, continue to evolve.