In this article, we explore the concept of validity as it applies to transformative experiences, asking how can we know when individuals are transformed as the result of some experience? What criteria or principles might be used to assess the validity of claims made about transformation? We suggest that validity in this context—what we call transformative validity—must transcend existing understandings that emphasize validity as a “thing” to be “achieved.” Instead, we introduce a new conceptualization of validity to the qualitative inquiry community: We suggest that transformative validity is best conceptualized as a process that centers intersubjectivity, dialogue, and recognition and is always open and rooted in uncertainty.
AhmedS. (2007). A phenomenology of whiteness. Feminist Theory, 8(2), 149–168.
2.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
3.
BenhabibS. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton University Press.
4.
BrachtG. H.GlassG. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4), 437–474.
5.
BrandomR. (2019). A spirit of trust: A semantic reading of Hegel’s phenomenology. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
6.
Call-CummingsM. (2017). Establishing communicative validity: Discovering theory through practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(3), 192–200.
7.
CampbellD. T. (1986). Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 31, 67–77.
8.
CampbellJ. C.Stanley. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally.
9.
CarspeckenF. P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.
10.
CarspeckenP. F. (2018). The missing infinite; A critique of mainstream and counter-mainstream methodological discourses. In Winkle-WagnerR.Lee-JohsonJ.GaskewA. (Eds.), Critical theory and qualitative data analysis in education. Routledge.
11.
ChoJ.TrentA. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340.
12.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
13.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4),281–302.
14.
DennisB. (2013). “Validity crisis” in qualitative research. In DennisB.CarspeckenL.CarspeckenP. F. (Eds.), Qualitative research: A reader in philosophy, core concepts, and practice (pp. 3–37). Peter Lang.
15.
DennisB. (2018). Validity as research praxis: A study of self-reflection and engagement in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(2), 109–118.
16.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (2017). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative researchSAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 1–26). SAGE.
17.
DerridaJ. (1997). Of grammatology. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
FineM. (1994). Working the hyphens. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S., (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70–82). Sage.
19.
FreemanM. (2011). Validity in dialogic encounters with hermeneutic truths. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 543–551.
20.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.
21.
FreireP. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (RamosM. B., Trans.). Herder.
22.
GadamerH. G. (1979). Truth and method. Continuum.
23.
GiddensA. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. University of California Press.
24.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 233–252.
25.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Beacon press.
26.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Beacon press.
27.
HanhT. N. (1987). Old path white clouds: Walking in the footsteps of the Buddha. Parallax Press.
28.
HeideggerK. (1962). Being and time (MacquarrieJ.RobinsonE., Trans). Harper & Row.
29.
HonnethA. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. The MIT Press.
30.
HostetlerK. (2005). What is “good” education research?Educational Researcher, 34(6), 16–21.
31.
HumbleyA. M.ZumboB. D. (1996). A dialectic on validity: Where we have been and where we are going. The Journal of General Psychology, 123(3), 207–215.
32.
JonsonJ. L.PlakeB. S. (1998). A historical comparison of validity standards and validity practices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(5), 736–753.
33.
LatherP. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4), 63–84.
34.
LiP.BanksT. (2019, June11). Theorizing the pursuit of intersubjective recognition. Paper presented at the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP) Annual Conference. Boston, MA.
35.
Limes-Taylor HendersonK.EspositoJ. (2017). Using others in the nicest way possible: On colonial and academic practice (s), and an ethic of humility. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(9), 876–889.
36.
MasseyS. G.BarrerasR. E. (2013). Introducing “impact validity.”Journal of Social Issues, 69(4), 615–632.
37.
MessickS. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
38.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2005). A typology of errors and myths perpetuated in educational research textbooks. Current Issues in Education, 8(7), 1–14.
39.
PrilleltenskyI. (2003). Understanding, resisting, and overcoming oppression: Toward psychopolitical validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1–2), 195–201.
40.
PrilleltenskyI. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116–136.
41.
RossK. (2019). Pilot evaluation of “Repairing Harm.”Center for Peace, Democracy, and Development, UMASS Boston.
42.
SireciS. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117.
43.
TeoT. (2010). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences?Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295–303
44.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight big-tent criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
45.
TugendhatE. (1986). Self-consciousness and self-determination. MIT Press.
46.
WeisL.FineM. (2012). Critical bifocality and circuits of privilege: Expanding critical ethnographic theory and design. Harvard Educational Review, 82(2), 173–201.
