CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,740Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsEducational Research and MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research

LeCompte, Margaret D., Goetz, Judith Preissle·1982·Review of Educational Research
DOI 10.3102/00346543052001031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although problems of reliability and validity have been explored thoroughly by experimenters and other quantitative researchers, their treatment by ethnographers has been sporadic and haphazard. This article analyzes these constructs as defined and addressed by ethnographers. Issues of reliability and validity in ethnographic design are compared to their counterparts in experimental design. Threats to the credibility of ethnographic research are summarized and categorized from field study methodology. Strategies intended to enhance credibility are incorporated throughout the investigative process: study design, data collection, data analysis, and presentation of findings. Common approaches to resolving various categories of contamination are illustrated from the current literature in educational ethnography.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/00346543052001031

Cites

145 of 145 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This work addresses validity by proposing a thing ethnography methodology that acknowledges the animistic nature of GenAI tools, considers access to their perspectives, and reaches consistent interpretations when comparing interview results with the existing body of literature.

    “As for ethnographic studies [58-61], this work addresses the research criteria of validity by proposing a thing ethnography methodology that acknowledges the animistic nature of GenAI tools. This approach considers the access to their perspectives and reaches consistent interpretations when comparing interview results with the existing body of literature.”

    From Using Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools to Explain and Enhance Experiential Learning for Authentic Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as [58]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 148 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P.
Affiliations
  • Houston Independent School District (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
1982-03
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
31-60
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
DOI
10.3102/00346543052001031
OpenAlex
W2103880672
Semantic Scholar
7253c6cd672281576a96db1037f135ce3e78fe41
Cited by
1,740
References
148
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 98 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 74
FWCI
52.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
reliability statistics, validity, ethnography, research credibility, contamination, ethnography of education, research design, data collection, data analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review