Common use of Trustworthiness Clause in Contracts

Trustworthiness. The use of peer review is recommended to provide an external check of the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). This research project was conducted with input from a dissertation committee, whose members collectively have extensive experience in qualitative and feminist research. I kept a written record of all meetings. The credibility of the findings depends on researcher self- awareness and reflexivity as an instrument of data collection and analysis (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1993). I kept a research journal to clarify my biases and assumptions as well as ideas about the research, as recommended by ▇▇▇▇ (1994). The process of member checking can be problematic. Sandelowski (1996) posits that the researcher and participant both have investments in the research that may shape the process of member checking. Social norms about politeness and social desirability may influence what participants communicate. Participants may not recognize their story in the abstract, scientific summary of the findings. The researcher has the challenge of deciding what synthesis of the data should be presented. For these reasons, I did not ask participants for feedback on the analysis, although they have indicated an interest in reading the results and a summary of the findings was made available to them at the completion of the study. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2013) identifies two broad threats to validity in a qualitative study: researcher bias, and reactivity. Bias is the researcher’s theories, beliefs, and perceptual lenses that influences what data are collected, how they are collected and how they are analyzed. While it is impossible to detach the researcher’s bias from the study, it is possible to own and acknowledge it. My work with women in labor and women who have experienced violence have made me more sensitive to how these elements influence women’s lives, their embodied experiences and their births. I care deeply about the ethics of the provider-patient relationship when the patient is in a vulnerable state. I am interested in supporting the normal physiology of birth because I have seen the iatrogenic effects of the over-medicalization of healthy pregnancies. I became aware of how these beliefs shaped my data collection, and in working with the dissertation committee, was able to identify how they were shaping the analysis. For example, in the initial readings of the data, the issue of medicalization was very prominent for me, and it seemed that everything related to women’s choices in labor was constrained by the use of medical equipment or by routine institutional practices that involve medical technology or interventions. This medicalization of normal, healthy pregnancy is a concern of the discipline of midwifery. Both the American College of Nurse Midwives and the International Confederation of Midwives have position statements on the appropriate use of technology for normal, healthy childbirth (ACNM, 2014a; ICM, 2005). My focus on this issue is a reflection of my education and the discourse of my profession. However, there was one committee member (not a midwife) who stressed that it was important to look past this issue to see the complexity of all of the issues that influence women’s choices, and not just those imposed by the hospital system. In the end, I still think that medical routines and medical technology have a detrimental and unnecessary influence on women’s choices in labor, but I came to understand that medical culture is not monolithic, and women’s choices are shaped by many other factors. The second broad threat to validity is reactivity, the influence that the researcher has over the data collection (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013). As noted previously, in a qualitative study it is not possible to eliminate the researchers influence over the study. In the development of the interview guide, I attempted to ask questions that would not lead the participant in a specific direction. I became skilled at allowing silence in the interviews to allow the participant to continue their story. This was initially uncomfortable socially, but I quickly realized it yielded better data and I became more comfortable. I made an effort to identify what parts of the interview made me smile or laugh, because this could be perceived as approving of some aspect of the narrative and prompt the person to offer a socially desirable answer.

Trustworthiness. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2000) claims they are two crises challenging the validity of ethnographic findings: representation and legitimation. The use crisis of peer review representation relates to the extent to which ethnographic accounts reflect reality (ibid). Realist ethnographers who believe there is recommended to provide an external check truth whether constructed by humans (interpretivist) or existing independent of the research process humans (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). This research project was conducted with input from a dissertation committee, whose members collectively have extensive experience in qualitative and feminist research. I kept a written record of all meetings. The credibility of the findings depends on researcher self- awareness and reflexivity as an instrument of data collection and analysis positivist) attempt to convey reality through thick description (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & , 1973). This thick description consists of detailed accounts of what has taken place regarding the phenomena under study as observed from the researcher’s insider or emic perspective (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 19931998). In Chapter 5, I kept have provided a research journal highly detailed account of the knowledge management processes the NHM undertook with supporting data from documents, observations and interviews to clarify my biases enable the reader to understand how organisational learning took place. In the 1980s, proponents of postmodernism challenged the notion that one external truth exists (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000). These anti-realists believe that even thick descriptions of phenomena are partial descriptions because there are multiple versions of reality and assumptions as well as ideas the version described will have been affected by the background of the researcher. In response, researchers are encouraged to be reflexive about the researchimpact their role upon their data and interpretations. Even within a realist perspective, as recommended by humans construct reality, the role of the researcher within the research process should be acknowledged. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (19942000) states that, to be reflexive, researchers should explicitly recognise that their study is only a partial reflection of reality as it is based on their choices about what and how to analyse data and they should contextualise data within the wider processes that produced them. In this vein, I acknowledge that I have presented the data in this thesis according to the stages of the knowledge management process and the phases of organisational learning proposed by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ (1974, 1996). The process of member checking While these stages can be problematic. Sandelowski (1996) posits applied to the data, this application was undertaken by myself retrospectively for this study, and I note that the researcher Museum did not consciously perform these stages in turn. The crisis of legitimation refers to the ability to assess the validity of ethnographic findings. As a qualitative research method, traditional measures of validity, such as reliability (i.e. the ability to replicate a study) and participant both have investments generalisability (i.e. the ability to use the findings in other contexts) do not apply in the research that may shape the process of member checkingsame way as they do for quantitative research. Social norms about politeness and social desirability may influence what participants communicate. Participants may not recognize their story in the abstractInstead, scientific summary of the findings. The researcher has the challenge of deciding what synthesis of the data should be presented. For these reasons, I did not ask participants for feedback on the analysis, although they have indicated an interest in reading the results and a summary of the findings was made available to them at the completion of the study. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (20131990) identifies two broad threats proposed new criteria by which to validity in determine an ethnography’s validity: plausibility, credibility and relevance. An ethnography is deemed relevant if it addresses a qualitative study: researcher bias, and reactivity. Bias is the researcher’s theories, beliefs, and perceptual lenses that influences what data are collected, how they are collected and how they are analyzed. While it is impossible societal problem and/or adds to detach the researcher’s bias from the study, it is possible to own and acknowledge it. My work with women in labor and women who have experienced violence have made me more sensitive to how these elements influence women’s lives, their embodied experiences and their births. I care deeply about the ethics a body of the provider-patient relationship when the patient is in a vulnerable state. I am interested in supporting the normal physiology of birth because I have seen the iatrogenic effects of the over-medicalization of healthy pregnancies. I became aware of how these beliefs shaped my data collection, and in working with the dissertation committee, was able to identify how they were shaping the analysis. For example, in the initial readings of the data, the issue of medicalization was very prominent for me, and it seemed that everything related to women’s choices in labor was constrained by the use of medical equipment or by routine institutional practices that involve medical technology or interventions. This medicalization of normal, healthy pregnancy is a concern of the discipline of midwifery. Both the American College of Nurse Midwives and the International Confederation of Midwives have position statements on the appropriate use of technology for normal, healthy childbirth (ACNM, 2014a; ICM, 2005). My focus on this issue is a reflection of my education and the discourse of my profession. However, there was one committee member (not a midwife) who stressed that it was important to look past this issue to see the complexity of all of the issues that influence women’s choices, and not just those imposed by the hospital system. In the end, I still think that medical routines and medical technology have a detrimental and unnecessary influence on women’s choices in labor, but I came to understand that medical culture is not monolithic, and women’s choices are shaped by many other factors. The second broad threat to validity is reactivity, the influence that the researcher has over the data collection knowledge (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 20131990). This study does both. As noted previouslydiscussed in the Introduction to this thesis, this study aims to help museums adapt to their ever-changing environment to remain financially sustainable public institutions in a qualitative study it is not possible to eliminate the researchers influence over the studyfuture. In this way, the development of research addresses a societal problem. Museums are relatively understudied from organisational learning and knowledge management perspectives and thus this research contributes to both the interview guide, I attempted to ask questions that would not lead museum research literature and the participant in a specific direction. I became skilled at allowing silence in the interviews to allow the participant to continue their story. This was initially uncomfortable socially, but I quickly realized it yielded better data and I became more comfortable. I made an effort to identify what parts of the interview made me smile or laugh, because this could be perceived as approving of some aspect of the narrative and prompt the person to offer a socially desirable answerorganisational learning literature.