@Kip Jones

Thank you for taking a read and your feedbacks.

I know exactly what you mean about Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability. I really am not fond of including them at all in qualitative work, though recently had to rewrite to include a discussion about how I, as a qualitative researcher, can be trusted. When I chose these terms here, I was using them from Creswell (2008), with a nod to the naturalistic inquiry of Lincoln and Guba (1985), which I had been encouraged to get and use for my work. By putting them in my design, I was trying to show that I am aware of and somehow need to discuss these topics. However, I really really appreciate your pointing out that I may have been alluding to using the concepts in a big mess (which I have done on occassion before).

I really like what you said about “an attempt to mimic positivist approaches and quantitative methods and do not fit well within a qualitative paradigm. Some may give you ‘parallel’ or alternative words to replace these, but (IMHO) this just avoids the problem that a qualitative study is about something else and should not be ‘evaluated’ using quantitative principles.” With this stated, how else can you demonstrate that you as a qualitative researcher can be trusted to present what you found? I know that because I know you and your work to an extent–but for somebody who does not, what are some of the possible answers about those issues?