Confirmability. This refers to the question whether interpretations leading to results are as free as possible from personal values or inclinations. It also includes reflections on whether the method ensures that all perspectives of all authors are represented in a fair way.
Confirmability. Most questionnaire respondents agreed that the participatory evaluation method is not totally free from subjectivity. The nature of the research process inevitably means that personal interpretations play a part in the process. For instance, the development of robust and meaningful scores to assess the qualitative data was based upon the researcher’s own interpretation which was inevitably somewhat subjective. The method allows considering different viewpoints of different stakeholders but the method is rather sensitive for differences in stakeholder prioritization and interpretations. The UoG team mentioned that in this respect, having discussions among research teams with different disciplinary backgrounds led to robust discussions about the results and the interpretations.
Confirmability. Results of an LCA are also seen as confirmable, i.e. interpretations are as free as possible from personal values or inclinations. However, some important choices, e.g. regarding the functional unit and some other assumptions might be influenced by personal inclinations.
Confirmability. Personal values and inclinations do not influence the results derived from the shadow price methodology. The methodology is thus very confirmable.
Confirmability. Confirmability is often equated with reliability and objectivity in qualitative research, these are measures of accuracy of the truth and meaning being expressed in the study. Confirmability can accurately verify the basic goals of qualitative research namely to understand a phenomenon from the research participants and too understand the meaning people give to their experiences (Xxxxxx, 2012a, p. 112-113). Confirmability in this study was established through an audit trail by getting an independent reviewer to verify the process and interpretations are consistent with both the literature and methodological levels (Xxxxxx, 2012a, p. 112-113)
Confirmability. Confirmability refers to the degree which the study’s findings are determined and supported by the focus of the inquiry and not by the biases of the researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It can be described as the qualitative researcher’s concern with the neutrality or objectivity of the inquiry (Xxxxxxx, 2004). In this thesis, several strategies were utilised to ensure confirmability. Firstly, I provided detailed information concerning the data collection, coding and analysis processes with the purpose of ensuring that the research process was adequately transparent for the readers. Secondly, inter-coder agreement was established with a PhD student, who was not involved any part of this study, in order to ascertain that the coding and analysis processes were being performed reliably. Thirdly, I presented some of the preliminary findings of my study at the British Education Research Association (XXXX) Annual Conference 2011, which resulted in constructive feedback and comments being received with regard to the research process from experienced and well-informed academics. Furthermore, because the researcher is the primary instrument in both data collection and interpretation, it is suggested that he/she must identify and highlight his/her own biases and perspectives, and their possible influence on the inquiry (Xxxxxxxx, 2009; Xxxxxxxxx & Gullam, 2004; Xxxxxx, 2002). Regarding this, for this study, in order o make certain that the interpretations and findings correctly reflected the students’ inquiry learning experiences, I put aside my preconceived notions about the regulation of learning theory and remained open-minded, paying great attention to not letting any of my personal beliefs and assumptions have an impact on any part of the research process.
