One key area that outstood in the module was the coding and interpretation of data. Through the lecture I got so much insight on the best strategies of analyzing the data. I remember vividly the lecturer’s commandments of data analysis. The first thing addressed was that there is need to have a thorough understanding of the literature presented. The second point involved adequate preparation while the other thing was to organize archival data in clear batches. Through these steps plus the reading from the textbook helped me have a solid understanding of the best approach to data analysis. I remember very well reading that data is supposed to be reviewed before it is coded.
Another area of concern was in understanding the whole aspect of validity. I went through the textbook to gain further insight on the topic hence I was able to get a number of concepts about the topic. It was not ringing into my mind the so called external and internal validity but I sought help from a friend who distinguished the two aspects for me in concise details. According to what I understood, internal validity deals with the extent to which research findings minimizes the biasness that is achieved through the research while external validity refers to the generalizability of a research to other populations.
Upon getting, the basic information through the lecture to the text, which provides some great insight on most of the aspects, learnt in class. Dr. Long shed some good light on the ways of dealing with substance and rigor in qualitative research. Even if validity had proven somehow tricky to get the full concept behind it, Long mentioned the distinction between validity and credibility. However, despite the understanding one question still lingers in my mind and requires someone to give me an elaborate description. The difference between credibility and reliability is the area of concern.
In module 4, I had encountered a number of challenges in differentiating between