Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

Discussion
1994), as long as the nature of qualitative research is acknowledged in
applying the criteria and in designing the research methods. Following this
proposition, the criteria of validity and reliability are utilized to evaluate the
trustworthiness and utility of the current study. The efforts taken to
improve the validity and reliability are also discussed.
The validity of the study is examined in terms of construct validity,
internal validity, and external validity. Firstly, construct validity refers to
the quality of the operationalization of the investigated concepts,
addressing the evidence that the theoretical paradigm corresponds to
observation. To strengthen construct validity, the author of the study has
aimed to establish a clear chain of evidence from the initial research
questions to the conclusions (Yin, 1994). Furthermore, construct validity
has been strengthened by the triangulation of data sources (Eisenhardt,
1989; Yin, 1994) in terms of multiple interviewees and the complementary
research material (see section 3.4). Following Meyer (2001), construct
validity has also been addressed by including multiple cases in examination
and studying them (when feasible) with a longitudinal approach. The
longitudinal multiple-case approach has allowed the author to the test the
construct measures over time and in different contexts, which is assumed to
have produced more precise definitions of the central constructs (ibid.).
Internal validity refers to the “truthfulness” of the qualitative research
findings in terms of whether they provide a credible interpretation of the
data. Internal validity specifically addresses the logical reasoning of
research. To strengthen internal validity, emphasis has been put into
making the research process transparent to the readers. The methods of
data gathering and analysis have been defined in detail in chapter 3, and
throughout the thesis systematic and in-depth approaches have been used
in describing the author’s reasoning. The frequent use of direct quotes from
the interviews aims to provide the readers with additional opportunities to
evaluate the reasoning. Moreover, additional data has been attached in the
Appendices to provide further evidence on how the empirical observations
have been linked with the conclusions.
Following the suggestions by previous literature (e.g. Lincoln & Guba,
1985), “member checks” have also been employed, referring to the
informants’ review of the case study reports. The contact persons of the
case organizations were provided with the opportunity to review the case
descriptions included in section 4.1, and minor modifications were made
based on their comments. The preliminary findings have also been
presented and discussed in several workshops and seminars with the
representatives of the case organizations and other program management
practitioners. Despite these efforts, the study involves potential concerns of
207