Paragraph

Abstract: Experienced and novice researchers, plan qualitative proposals where evidence o f rigor m u st be provided w ithin the document. One option is the creation o f a trustworthiness protocol w ith details noting the characteristic o f rigor, the process used to docum ent the rigor, and then a timeline directing the planned time fo r conducting trustworthiness activities. A fter reviewing several documents, an actual plan o f conducting trustworthiness as not found. Thus, these authors set out to create a trustworthiness protocol designed not only fo r the dissertation, b u t a fram ew ork fo r others who m u st create similar trustworthiness protocols fo r their research. The purpose o f this article is to provide a reference fo r the trustw orthiness plan, a dissertation example and showcase a trustworthiness protocol that may be used as an example to other qualitative researchers embarking on the creation o f a trustworthiness protocol that is concrete and clear.

K ey Words: Trustworthiness, Research Protocols, Qualitative Research Creating Protocols for Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Anything perceived as being of low or no value is also perceived as being worthless, unreliable, or invalid. Research that is perceived as worthless is said to lack rigor. This means findings are not w orth noting or paying attention to, because they are unreliable.

To avoid this argument, proof of reliability and validity in qualitative research m ethods is required. However, some researchers have suggested th a t reliability and validity are not terms to be used to explain the usefulness of qualitative research. They believe that those terms are to be used to validate quantitative research (Altheide & Johnson, 1998; Leininger, 1994). Morse (1999) expressed concern about qualitative research losing value by em phasizing w hen qualitative researchers fail to recognize crucial importance of reliability and validity in qualita tive m ethods, they are also mistakenly supporting the idea that qualitative research is defective and worthless, lacking in thoroughness, and of unem pirical value.

Guba and Lincoln (1981) stated that, "All research m ust have 't r u t h v a lu e ', 'ap p licab ility ', 'consistency', and 'neutrality' in order to be considered worthwhile. They concluded that the end result of establishing rigor or "trustworthiness," (the analogous for rigor in qualitative research), for each m ethod of research requires a differ ent approach. It was noted by Guba and Lincoln (1981), L inda A m a n k w a a , P h D , R N , F A A N , is an Associate Professor in the Department o f N u rsin g at Albany State Uni versity in Albany, GA31705. Dr. Amankwaa may be reached at: 229-430-4731 or at: [email protected] ithin the rationalistic paradigm , criteria to reach the goal of rigor are internal validity, external validity, reli ability, and objectivity. They proposed use of terms such as credibility, fittingness, auditability, and confirmability in qualitative research to ensure "trustworthiness" (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). Later, these criteria were changed to credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirm ability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that the value of a research study is strengthened by its trustworthiness. As established by Lincoln and Guba in the 1980s, trustw or thiness involves establishing:

• C redibility - confidence in th e 't r u t h ' of th e finding • T ransferability - sh o w in g th a t th e fin d in g s hav e applicability in o th e r contexts • D e p e n d ab ility - sh o w in g th a t th e fin d in g s are consistent a n d could be re p e a te d • C onfirm ability - a d egree of n e u tra lity or the ex te n t to w h ic h th e fin d in g s of a s tu d y are sh a p e d by th e re sp o n d e n ts a n d n o t researcher bias, m o tiv atio n , or interest.

For purposes of this discussion, this classic w ork is used to frame trustw orthiness actions and activities to create a protocol for qualitative studies. N ursing faculty and doctoral nursing students w ho conduct qualitative research will find this reference useful.

Jo u rn al of C u ltu ra l D iversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 Fall 2016 Lincoln a n d Guba (1985) described a series of techniques th a t can be u s e d to co n d u ct qualitative research th a t at tain s the criteria they outlined. Techniques for establishing credibility as identified by Lincoln a n d G u b a (1985) are:

p ro lo n g e d en g a g em e n t, p e rs is te n t observation, tria n g u la tion, p e e r debriefing, n e g a tiv e case analysis, referential adequacy, a n d member-checking. Typically m em ber check in g is v ie w e d as a tec h n iq u e for estab lish in g the validity of an account. Lincoln a n d G uba po sit th a t this is the m ost crucial tech n iq u e for establishing credibility.

Transferability Activities O ne strategy th a t can be em p lo y e d to facilitate transfer- ability is thick description (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & G uba, 1985). Thick d e scrip tio n is described by Lincoln a n d G uba as a w a y of achieving a type of external v a lid ity. By describing a p h e n o m e n o n in sufficient d e ta il one can b e g in to ev a lu a te the e x te n t to w h ic h the conclusions d r a w n are transferable to o th e r tim es, settings, situations, a n d people. Since, as sta te d by M erriam (1995) it is the resp o n sib ility of the co n su m e r of research to d e te rm in e or decide if a n d h o w research resu lts m ig h t be a p p lie d to o th e r se ttin g s, th e o rig in a l re se a rc h e r m u s t p ro v id e d e ta ile d in fo rm a tio n a b o u t the p h e n o m e n o n of s tu d y to assist the c o n su m e r in m ak in g the decision. This requires the p ro v isio n of copious a m o u n ts of in fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g e v e ry a s p e c t of th e research . The in v e s tig a to r w ill in clu d e su c h details as the location setting, atm osphere, climate, p a rtic ip a n ts present, a ttitu d e s of the p a rticip a n ts involved, reactions o b se rv e d th a t m ay n o t be c a p tu re d on a u d io recording, b o n d s esta b lish e d b e tw e e n participants, a n d feelings of the investigator. O ne w o r d de scrip to rs will n o t suffice in the d e v e lo p m e n t of thick description. The in v estig a to r in essence is telling a story w ith e n o u g h detail th a t th e c o n s u m e r /r e a d e r obtains a v iv id p ictu re of the ev e n ts of th e research. This can be accom plished th ro u g h jo u rn a lin g a n d m a in ta in in g rec o rd s w h e th e r d ig ita l or h a n d w r itte n for review by the c o n s u m e r/re a d e r.

Confirmability Activities To e sta b lish confirm ability Lincoln a n d G u b a (1985) s u g g e ste d confirm ability a u d it, a u d it trail, triangulation, a n d reflexivity. A n a u d it trail is a tra n s p a re n t description of th e research steps ta k e n from th e s ta rt of a research project to the d e v e lo p m e n t a n d rep o rtin g of findings (Lincoln & Guba). These are records th a t are k e p t re g a rd in g w h a t w as d o n e in a n investigation. Lincoln a n d G uba cite H a lp e rn 's (1983) categories for re p o rtin g inform ation w h e n d e v e lo p in g a n a u d it trail:

"1) Raw data - including all raw data, w ritten field notes, unobstrusive measures (documents); 2) Data reduction and analysis products - inclu d in g s u m maries such as condensed notes, unitized information and quantitative summaries and theoretical notes; 3) Data reconstruction and synthesis products - includ ing structure o f categories (themes, definitions, and relationships), fin d in g s and conclusions and a final report including connections to existing literatures and an integration o f concepts, relationships, and interpretations; 4) Process notes - including method ological notes (procedures, designs, strategies, ratio nales), trustworthiness notes (relating to credibility, dependability and confirmability) and audit trail notes; 5) Materials relating to intentions and dispositions -including inquiry proposal, personal notes (reflexive notes and. motivations) and expectations (predictions and intentions); 6) In stru m e n t development informa tion - including pilot form s, preliminary schedules, observation fo rm a ts" (page#).

U sing m u ltip le d a ta sources w ith in a n in v estig a tio n to enhance u n d e rs ta n d in g is called triangulation. Researchers see tria n g u la tio n as a m e th o d for co rro b o ratin g findings a n d as a test for v a lid ity (Lincoln & G uba, 1985). Rather th a n seeing triangulation as a m eth o d for validation or veri fication, qualitative researchers generally use this technique to e n su re th a t a n account is rich, robust, com prehensive a n d w ell-d ev elo p ed (Lincoln & G uba, 1985).

D e n z in (1978) a n d P a tto n (1999) id en tify fo u r types of triangulation: m eth o d s triangulation, source triangulation; a n a ly st tria n g u la tio n ; th e o r y /p e r s p e c tiv e tria n g u la tio n .

They suggested th a t m ethods triangulation involves check in g o u t the consistency of fin d in g g e n e ra te d by different d a ta collection m e th o d s. T rian g u latio n of sources is an exa m in atio n of the consistency of different d a ta sources from w ith in the sam e m e th o d (i.e. at different p o in ts in tim e; in p ublic vs. p riv a te settings; c o m p a rin g pe o p le w ith different view points).

A n o th e r one of the fo u r m e th o d s identified b y D enzin a n d P a tto n includes an a ly st tria n g u la tio n . This is the use of m u ltip le analysts to review findings or u s in g m u ltip le o bservers a n d analysts. This p ro v id e s a check on selective p e rc e p tio n a n d illu m in a te b lin d sp o ts in an in te rp re tiv e analysis. The goal is to u n d e rs ta n d m u ltip le w a y s of see ing the data. Finally, they d escribed th e o r y /p e r s p e c tiv e tria n g u la tio n as the use of m ultiple theoretical perspectives to exam ine a n d in te rp re t the data.

A ccording to Lincoln a n d G uba (1985) reflexivity is, " A n a ttitu d e of a tte n d in g system atically to th e context of k n o w le d g e construction, especially to th e effect of the researcher, at e very step of the research process." They su g g e ste d the follow ing step s to d e v e lo p reflexivity: 1) D esigning research th a t includes m u ltip le investigators.

This fosters dialogue, leads to the de v e lo p m e n t of com ple m en ta ry a n d divergent u n d e rsta n d in g s of a s tu d y situation a n d p ro v id e s a context in w h ic h researchers' (often h id den) - beliefs, values, perspectives a n d assu m p tio n s can be revealed a n d contested; 2) Develop a reflexive journal. This is a ty p e of d ia ry w h e re a researcher m akes re g u la r entries d u rin g the research process. In these entries, the researcher records m ethodological decisions a n d the reasons for them, the logistics of th e s tu d y a n d reflection u p o n w h a t is h a p p e n in g in term s of o n e 's o w n va lu e s a n d interests. D iary k e e p in g of this ty p e is often ve ry p riv a te a n d cathartic; 3) R eport research p erspectives, positions, va lu e s an d beliefs in m an u scrip ts a n d other publications. M any believe th a t it is valuable a n d essential to briefly rep o rt in m anuscripts, as b e s t as possible, h o w o n e 's preconceptions, beliefs, values, assu m p tio n s a n d position m ay h ave come into p lay d u rin g the research process.

Dependability Activities To establish dependability, Lincoln a n d Guba (1985) s u g ge ste d a technique k n o w n as in q u iry a u d it. In q u iry a u d its are conducted by h aving a researcher th a t is n o t involved in the research process exam ine b o th the process an d p ro d u c t of th e research s tu d y (Lincoln & G uba, 1985). The p u rp o se is to ev a lu a te the accuracy a n d e v a lu a te w h e th e r or n o t the findings, in terp retatio n s a n d conclusions are s u p p o rte d by the d a ta (Lincoln & G uba, 1985).

Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3Fall 2016 The creation of a protocol for establishing trustw or thiness w ithin qualitative research is essential to rigor.

Further, we note that researchers rarely docum ent how or w h at their trustw orthiness plan or protocol consisted of w ithin research documents. Thus, we posit here that creating such a protocol prior to initiation of the research study is essential to revealing trustw orthiness w ithin the research process. By creating this plan a priori, the rigor of qualitative research is apparent.

This history and p urposed need for this article heralds from a doctoral dissertation search to find examples of trustw orthiness protocols for direction to complete tru st worthiness within doctoral qualitative research. Since none could be found, discussions lead the researcher to create a table that could used by those w ho are planning qualita tive studies. Another interesting point is that qualitative researchers, unlike quantitative researchers, rarely create protocol guidelines.

The establishment of trustworthiness protocols in quali tative research requires the use of several techniques. This protocol will be detail specific so those researchers have a guideline for trustw orthiness activities. Such a protocol guides prospective qualitative researchers in their quest for rigor. Several tables are presented here. The first table outlines the main topics w ithin the trustw orthiness proto col. The remaining tables outline the suggested activities w ithin trustw orthiness protocol and for those creating a trustw orthiness protocol.

Table one is the basic criteria for a trustw orthiness pro tocol using Lincoln and Guba (1985). However, researchers may use other models of rigor. Creating a table aligned with the planned model of rigor is the recommendation. The following five table are examples of a "created" protocol w ith examples of very specific activities related to each trustw orthiness criteria.

Summary In summary, tru s tw o rth in e s s is a v ital com p o n en t w ithin the research process. A ttending to the language of trustw orthiness and the im portant activities of reliabil ity, add to the comprehensiveness and the quality of the research product. This discussion heralds the new idea that trustw orthiness m ust be planned ahead of time with a protocol. This protocol m ust include dates and times trustw orthiness actions. We contend that researchers can use the protocol by adding two columns which specify the date of the planned trustworthiness action and the date the action w as actually completed. This inform ation can then be included in the audit trail thus authenticating the work qualitative researcher and the rigor of the research.REFERENCES A ltheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1998). C riteria for assessing in te rp re tive v alid ity in qualitativ e research. In N. K. D enzin, & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting materials, 283- 312.

Creswell, J. & Miller, D. (2000). D eterm in in g v alid ity a n d q u alita tive inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 125-130.

D enzin, N. (1978). Sociological Methods. N e w York: M cGraw-Hill.

G uba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation: improving the usefidness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leininger, M. (1994). E valuation criteria a n d critique of qualitative a n d in te rp re tiv e research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-279.

Lincoln, Y. S. & G uba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. N e w b u ry Park, CA: Sage Publications.

M orse, J. (1999). M yth #3: Reliability a n d v alid ity are n o t relevant to q u alitative mquiry.Qualitative Heath Research, 9, 717.

P atton, M. Q. (1999). "E n h an cin g th e q u ality a n d credibility of q u alitative analysis." HSR: Health Services Research. 34(5), P a rt II, 1189-1208.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bitsch, V. (2005). Q ualitative research: A g ro u n d e d theory example a n d ev alu atio n criteria. Journal of Argibusiness, 23 (1), 75-91.

C arpenter, R. (1995). G ro u n d e d th eo ry research ap proach. In H.

J. S treu b ert & R. D. Carpenter(Eds-), Qualitative research and in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative, 145-161.

C ohen D., Crabtree, B. (2006). Q u alitative Research G uidelines Project. July 2006. http://w w w .q u alres.o rg /H o m eR efl-3 7 0 3 .

h tm l Giacomini, M. & Cook, D. (2000). A u s e r 's g u id e to q u alitative research in he a lth care. In Users' guides to evidence-based medicine. Journal o f the American Medical Association, 284(4), 478-482.

M orse, J. Barrett, M., M ayan, M., O lson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002).

Verification strategies for establishing reliability a n d v alid ity in qualitativ e research. International Journal o f Q u a lita tive Methods, 1, 2, Article 2. R etrieved A pril 30, 2010 from http: / / w w w .u a lb e r ta .c a /- ijq r n / N eum an, L. (2003). Q ualitative a n d quantitative m easurem ents. In Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, fifth edition, 169-209.

Plack, M. (2005). H u m a n n a tu re a n d research parad ig m s: T heory m eets physical th e ra p y practice. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 223-245.

Polit, D. & H ungler, B. (1999). Research control in q u an titativ e research. In N u rsin g research: P r i n c i p l e s a n d m e t h o d s , sixth edition, 219-238. Lippincott.

Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. T h o u sa n d O aks, CA: Sage Publications.

Siegle, D. (2002). Principles a n d m eth o d s in educational research:

A w eb -b ased course from th e U niversity of Connecticut. Re triev ed A p ril 30, 2010 from h ttp : / / w w w .g ifte d .u c o n n .e d u / siegle / research /q u alitativ e / qualitativeInstructorN otes.htm l Tobin, G. & Begley, C. (2004). M ethodological rig o u r w ith in a qualitativ e fram ew ork. Journal o f Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388-396.

Table 1. Basic Trustworthiness Criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) C rite ria T e c h n iq u e C re d ib ility P e e r d e b rie fin g , m e m b e r checks, jo u rn a lin g T ra n s fe ra b ility T h ic k descrip tio n , jo u rn a lin g D e p e n d a b ility Inquiry a u d it w ith a u d it trail C o n firm a b ility T ria n g u la tio n , jo u rn a lin g Jo u rn al of C u ltu ral Diversity Fall 2016 C re d ib ilityR e c o m m e n d e d a c tiv itie s /p la n P eer 1.W rite plan w ith in proposal.

d e b rie fin g /d e b rie fe r 2.C o m m issio n a p e e r to w o rk w ith re s e a rc h e r during th e tim e o f in te rv ie w s and data collection.

3.T h is person m ust co m p le te an a tte sta tio n form to w o rk w ith researcher. Plan to m eet w ith th is person a fte r each interview .

4.D uring visits w ith th e p e e r d e b rie fe r, research and p eer discu ss interview s, fee lin gs, a ctio n s o f subjects, th o u g h ts, and ideas th a t p re s e n t during th is tim e. D iscuss blocking, clo u d in g and o th e r fe e lin gs o f re se a rch er. D iscuss d a te s and tim e s needed fo r th e se activities. W ill m e e t o nce a w e e k fo r 30 m in u te s to an hour.

5.Journal th e se m eetings. W rite a b o u t th o u g h ts th a t s u rfa ce d and keep th e se dated fo r research and e v a lu atio n during d ata analysis.

6.Need to be c o m p u te r files so th a t you m a y use th is info rm a tio n w ith in da ta analysis.

M e m b e r C h ecks 1.O u tlin e d iffe re n t tim e s and rea so n s you plan to c o n d u c t m e m b e r ch e c k s o r co lle ct fe e d b a c k from m e m b e rs a b o u t an y step in th e research process.

2.M e m b e r ch e c k s will co n s is t o f c o m m u n ica tio n w ith m em bers a fte r s ig n ific a n t activities.

3.T h e se a c tiv itie s m a y include interview s, da ta analysis, and o th e r activities.

4.W ith in tw o w e e k s o f th e interview , send m em bers a c o p y o f th e ir in te rvie w so th a t th e y can read it and e d it fo r accuracy.

5.W ith in tw o w e e k s o f data an a lysis co m p le tio n , m e m b e r w ill re vie w a c o p y o f the final th e m e s.

6.M e m b e rs are asked th e que stio n , “ D oes the in te rvie w tra n s c rip t re fle ct y o u r w o rd s d u rin g th e in te rv ie w ? ” 7. C h o o se n e g a tive ca se s and cases th a t fo llo w pattern.

8. Be sure th e se c h e ck are re corded and are c o m p u te r files so th a t you m ay use th is in fo rm a tio n in data analysis.

J o u rn a lin g plans 1. Jo u rn a lin g w ill begin w ith th e w ritin g o f the proposal.

2. Jo u rn a lin g w ill be co nducted a fte r e ach s ig n ific a n t a ctivity. T h e se in clu d e each interview , w e e k ly during a nalysis, a fte r p e e r de b rie fin g visits, and th e m e production.

3. Jo u rn a ls will be au d ite d by research auditor.

4. J o u rn a ls w ill include dates, tim es, places and perso n s on th e research team .

5. Jo u rn a ls need to be c o m p u te r files so th a t you m a y use th e m in data analysis.

P ro to co lC re a te a tim e lin e w ith planned d a te s fo r each a ctiv ity related to c re d ib ility before c o m m e n cin g the study. T h is protocol w ith d a te s and activitie s should a p p e a r in the appendix.

Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3Fall 2016 3. Transferability Thick Description Actions for this activity include:

Reviewing crafted questions with Peer reviewer for clarity.

Planning questions that call for extended answers.

Asking open ended questions that solicit detailed answers.

Interviewing in such a way as to obtain a detailed, thick and robust response.

The object is to reproduce the phenomenon of research as clearly and as detailed as possible.

This action is replicated with each participant and with each question (sub-question) or statement.

This continues until all questions and sub-questions are discussed.

The peer reviewer along with the researcher review responses for thickness and robustness.

There are two issues related to thick description here. The first is receiving thick responses (not one sentence paragraphs). The second is writing up the responses of multiple participants in such a way as to describe the phenomena as a thick response.

Journaling Actions for this activity include:

Planning journal work in advance is an option. Such that the researcher could decide what dates and how often the journal will occur.

Journaling after interview is common.

Journaling after peer-review sessions.

Journaling after a major event during the study.

Journal entries should be discussed with peer reviewer such that expression of thoughts and ideas gleaned during research activities can be connected to participants’ experiences.

Journals can be maintained in various formats. Information for the journal can be received in the form of emails, documents, recordings, note cards/note pads. We recommend that the researcher decide on one of the options.

Journaling includes dates of actions related to significant and insignificant activities of the research.

Journal may start on the first date a decision is made to conduct the research.

Journaling ends when the research is completed and all participants have been interviewed.

10.

As with each of the concepts here, create a timeline with a date-line protocol for each activity before commencing the study.

P ro to c o l Create a timeline with planned dates for each activity related to transferability before commencing the study. This protocol with dates and activities should appear in the appendix.

Jo urnal of C u ltu ral D iversity • Vol. 23, No. 3 Fall 2016 4. Dependability A u d it T ra ilC o m p o n e n ts o f th e a u d it tra il include:

1. M ake th e list o f d o c u m e n ts planned fo r a u d it during the research w ork.

2. C o m m is s io n th e a u d ito r based on plan fo r study.

3. D ecide a u d it trail re vie w d a te s and tim es.

4. S ee a u d ito r in fo rm a tio n below 5. W rite up a u d it tra il results in the jo u rn a l.

J o u rn a lin g A c tio n s fo r th is a c tiv ity include:

I . P la nning jo u rn a l w o rk in a d va n ce is an option. S uch th a t th e re s e a rc h e r could decid e w h a t d a te s and h ow often th e jo u rn a l w ill occur.

I I . J o u rn a lin g a fte r in te rv ie w is com m on.

12. J o u rn a lin g a fte r p e e r-re v ie w sessions.

13. J o u rn a lin g a fte r a m a jo r e ve n t d u rin g th e study.

14. J o u rn a l e n trie s sho u ld be discu sse d w ith p e e r re v ie w e r such th a t e xp re s s io n o f th o u g h ts and ideas g le a ne d during re search activitie s can be co n n e cte d to p a rtic ip a n ts ’ e xp e rie n ce s.

15. Jo u rn a ls can be m a in ta in e d in v a rio u s fo rm a ts. In fo rm a tio n fo r th e jo u rn a l can be rece ive d in th e form o f em ails, d o cu m e n ts, re co rd in g s, n ote ca rd s /n o te pads. W e re co m m e n d th a t the re s e a rc h e r d e c id e on on e o f the options.

16. J o u rn a lin g in cludes d a te s o f actio n s related to s ig n ific a n t and in s ig n ific a n t a c tiv itie s o f the research.

17. J o u rn a l m ay s ta rt on th e firs t date a d e cision is m ade to c o n d u c t th e research.

18. J o u rn a lin g e nds w h e n th e research is c o m p le te d and all p a rtic ip a n ts have been interview ed.

A u d ito r 1. T h e a u d ito r is re view ing th e d o cu m e n ts fo r a u th e n tic ity and con siste n cy.

2. T h e a u d ito r m ay be a co lle a g u e o r so m e o n e u n fa m ilia r with th e research such th a t a ctivities can be q u e stio n e d fo r clarity.

3. T h e a u d ito r should have s o m e co m p re h e n s io n o f th e research process.

4. P lanning in a d v a n c e fo r th e tim e co m m itm e n t as an a u d ito r is crucial.

5. S h o u ld pro vid e co n s tru c tiv e fe e d b a c k on pro ce sse s in an h o n e s t fashion.

6. A u d ito r, re se a rch er, and p a rtic ip a n ts should s p e a k th e sam e language.

7. M ust be a ble to cre a te and m aintain a u d it tra il d o cum ents.

P ro to co lC re a te a tim e lin e w ith planned d a te s fo r each a ctiv ity related d e p e n d a b ility b e fo re c o m m e n cin g the study. T h is protocol w ith d a te s and activitie s should a p p e a r in th e appendix.

Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 23, No. 3Fall 2016 5. Confirmability T ria n g u la tio n 1. Determine triangulation methods 2. Document triangulation plans within journal.

3. Discuss triangulation results peer-reviewer 4. Decide if further triangulation is needed 5. Write up the triangulation results.

J o u rn a lin g Actions for this activity include:

2. Planning journal work in advance is an option. Such that the researcher could decide what dates and how often the journal will occur.

19. Journaling after interview is common.

20. Journaling after peer-review sessions.

21. Journaling after a major event during the study.

22. Journal entries should be discussed with peer reviewer such that expression of thoughts and ideas gleaned during research activities can be connected to participants experiences.

23. Journals can be maintained in various formats. Information for the journal can be received in the form of emails, documents, recordings, note cards/note pads. We recommend that the researcher decide on one of the options.

24. Journaling includes dates of actions related to significant and insignificant activities of the research.

25. Journal may start on the first date a decision is made to conduct the research.

Journaling ends when the research is completed and all participants have been interviewed.

P ro to col Create a timeline with planned dates for each activity related confirmability before commencing the study. This protocol with dates and activities should appear in the appendix.

• Vol. 23, No. 3 ( E 9 Journal of C u ltu ra l D iversity Fall 2016 Copyright ofJournal ofCultural Diversity isthe property ofTucker Publications, Inc.andits content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.