INTERNAL
VALIDITY FOR THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Northeastern
Seminary
(
*Recognize that the terms
‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ have been imported from the canons of quantitative
research. Historically, these terms come
from positivist thought, where scientific experiments could be repeated and
confirmed. In qualitative
research—especially theological research—these terms become more elusive. Most theological research—particularly action
research—cannot be repeated. Notions of
‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ will necessarily refer to the quality of the
research within the values of the community.
For example, one should ask these types of questions: How valuable is this research for enriching
the life of the Church? Does the
research demonstrate faithfulness to the historic witness of the Church as
embodied in the Scriptures, creeds and councils of historic Christianity?
*Use resources in a way that preserves meaning-in-context. Don’t pull snippets from here and there without regard for their meaning in the original context. If you draw from a resource’s argument, strive to preserve the author’s line of reasoning. Demonstrate enough conversation with your sources to understand them in their fullness, not merely for an exploited line or two.
*Use your thesis statement as the mason’s line for everything you put into the paper. If you have any material in your paper that does not contribute to the main argument, leave it out! If you have information that secondarily belongs to your paper but does not directly support your argument, consider contents notes.
*Ask yourself how you could possibly be wrong. While you cannot completely transcend your own thinking (by definition), you can transcend the reasoning of a particular research project. Such consideration loops back on the paper and often results in altering the paper’s position. This actually increases the internal validity of the paper.
*Does
your line of reasoning falter at points?
Are you unsure of yourself as you reason your way through an issue? If you presented the paper orally, would you
be tempted to raise your voice at points to cover over the weak points? Would you secretly hope that no one asked
questions on these points? Then revise
your paper, singling out these weak points for special attention—each part of
your argument stands with the whole. A
discerning reader will agree only if the argument is clear and supported in
each part.
*Do
your resources provide adequate, convincing support for your argument, or do
they simply lengthen the paper? Have you
added contents notes for the sake of appearance, or do they support the paper’s
main argument? Have you considered more than one side of an issue? Do you come across as fair-minded and
balanced? Or have you in fact written
theological propaganda, blindly arguing for your point without taking other
views into consideration?
*Have
you carefully qualified your argument?
Are your statements thoughtful and considered, or do you make sweeping,
unsubstantiated statements? Have you presented your case clearly? Or must you
escort your readers through a dense fog of tenuous reasoning? Clear, levelheaded reasoning ripens your
readers for agreement. If you cannot
present your case in a clear and straightforward manner, you may have
significant difficulty convincing your readers to agree with you.
*Remember—internal
validity emerges from the quality of the entire paper.
*Internal
validity is not a separate step but rather is integral to the entire research
process.
*Internal
validity has to do with the way the entire paper has been put together.
*Internal
validity reflects on the quality of your reasoning and your articulation.
Page
Last Modified
15
October 2006