TY - JOUR
T1 - Reported credibility techniques in higher education evaluation studies that use qualitative methods
T2 - A research synthesis
AU - Liao, Hongjing
AU - Hitchcock, John
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2018/6
Y1 - 2018/6
N2 - This synthesis study examined the reported use of credibility techniques in higher education evaluation articles that use qualitative methods. The sample included 118 articles published in six leading higher education evaluation journals from 2003 to 2012. Mixed methods approaches were used to identify key credibility techniques reported across the articles, document the frequency of these techniques, and describe their use and properties. Two broad sets of techniques were of interest: primary design techniques (i.e., basic), such as sampling/participant recruitment strategies, data collection methods, analytic details, and additional qualitative credibility techniques (e.g., member checking, negative case analyses, peer debriefing). The majority of evaluation articles reported use of primary techniques although there was wide variation in the amount of supporting detail; most of the articles did not describe the use of additional credibility techniques. This suggests that editors of evaluation journals should encourage the reporting of qualitative design details and authors should develop strategies yielding fuller methodological description.
AB - This synthesis study examined the reported use of credibility techniques in higher education evaluation articles that use qualitative methods. The sample included 118 articles published in six leading higher education evaluation journals from 2003 to 2012. Mixed methods approaches were used to identify key credibility techniques reported across the articles, document the frequency of these techniques, and describe their use and properties. Two broad sets of techniques were of interest: primary design techniques (i.e., basic), such as sampling/participant recruitment strategies, data collection methods, analytic details, and additional qualitative credibility techniques (e.g., member checking, negative case analyses, peer debriefing). The majority of evaluation articles reported use of primary techniques although there was wide variation in the amount of supporting detail; most of the articles did not describe the use of additional credibility techniques. This suggests that editors of evaluation journals should encourage the reporting of qualitative design details and authors should develop strategies yielding fuller methodological description.
KW - Credibility techniques
KW - Mixed methods synthesis
KW - Qualitative evaluation
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85044440543
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85044440543#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.03.005
DO - 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.03.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 29602062
AN - SCOPUS:85044440543
SN - 0149-7189
VL - 68
SP - 157
EP - 165
JO - Evaluation and Program Planning
JF - Evaluation and Program Planning
ER -