Rethinking validity in qualitative sport and exercise psychology research: a realist perspective

Abstract

Over the last two decades, the relativist approach has significantly shaped debates about the quality and rigour of qualitative research in sport and exercise psychology (SEP). In the absence of any published critiques of relativism in SEP, this paper problematises its central claims with a focus on the most recent contribution offered by Smith and McGannon (2018. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 101–121). Despite making valuable contributions to the advancement and acceptance of qualitative research, we argue that the relativist approach encounters numerous problems when attempting to reject the “anything goes” problem due to its fundamental ontological commitment to internal, multiple, mind-dependent realities. This paper then makes a constructive contribution to the field by offering an alternative position grounded in a realist understanding of validity. We first suggest that principles such as ontological plausibility, empirical adequacy and practical utility can re-orient both critical thinking and the use of practical techniques which can reduce threats to validity. Second, we suggest that Maxwell’s (1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279–301) descriptive, interpretive and theoretical validity could be welcome concepts for qualitative researchers in SEP. The significance of this realist approach for researchers, reviewers and editors is discussed.

Keywords:

• research quality
• rigour
• realism
• qualitative research
• relativism

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Tatiana Ryba, Dr Rasmus Bysted Møller and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript.

Notes

1 379 citations in Google Scholar, 28.6.2019.

2 However, not all realist scholars prefer to use the term validity. For example, critical realists including Bhaskar (2009) more often use terms such as judgemental rationality and explanatory power whereas Sayer (1992, 2000) often discusses practical adequacy of knowledge claims.

Additional information

Funding

This project has received funding from Alfred Kordelin foundation: [grant number 15143] and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation -programme: [grant number 792172].