(quantitative reliability) and (quantitative objectivity and consistency neutrality researcher’s distance). To relate this term even more closely to the interpretivist tradition, the same authors have further modified the four-point list of criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This modified and well-established model comprises concepts such as (prior truth value - credibility quantitative internal validity), (prior applicability - quantitative external transferability validity or generalizability), (prior consistency - quantitative reliability) and dependability (prior neutrality - quantitative objectivity and distance) (Lincoln confirmability researcher’s & Guba, 1985). In subsequent seminal works, Guba and Lincoln (1989; 1994) also introduced the notion of to represent a range of multiple realities and truths in authenticity, line with the interpretivist perspective. In line with this alternative terminology, transferability should be used and preferred in qualitative research instead of theoretical generalizability. However, even if the original aim of the changes in the terminology was to bring clarity and a universally acknowledged terminology in the field, these guidelines still lack shared agreement between academics (Morse, 2002). A bewildering proliferation of new terms has hindered the selection of a vocabulary unanimously accepted by scholars (Seale, 1999). The absence of a recognized canon, through which to appropriately evaluate the quality and trustworthiness of the study may be one of the reasons for the skepticism surrounding generalizability in qualitative research (Delmar, 2010). Nevertheless, whilst this burgeoning terminology reflects the difficulties and contradictions that qualitative methodologists have met in developing an overarching system for specifying quality (Seale, 1999), it also represents an essential first step towards defining the autonomous of qualitative research (Morse, 2002). These criteria are in fact status fundamental to judge the rigor or, better, trustworthiness and attentiveness of qualitative
consistency (quantitative reliability) and neutrality (quantitative researcher’s objectivity and distance). To relate this term even more closely to the interpretivist tradition, the same authors have further modified the four-point list of criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This modified and well-established model comprises concepts such as credibility (prior truth value - quantitative internal validity), transferability (prior applicability - quantitative external validity or generalizability), dependability (prior consistency - quantitative reliability) and confirmability (prior neutrality - quantitative researcher’s objectivity and distance) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In subsequent seminal works, Guba and Lincoln (1989; 1994) also introduced the notion of authenticity, to represent a range of multiple realities and truths in line with the interpretivist perspective. In line with this alternative terminology, transferability should be used and preferred in qualitative research instead of theoretical generalizability. However, even if the original aim of the changes in the terminology was to bring clarity and a universally acknowledged terminology in the field, these guidelines still lack shared agreement between academics (Morse, 2002). A bewildering proliferation of new terms has hindered the selection of a vocabulary unanimously accepted by scholars (Seale, 1999). The absence of a recognized canon, through which to appropriately evaluate the quality and trustworthiness of the study may be one of the reasons for the skepticism surrounding generalizability in qualitative research (Delmar, 2010). Nevertheless, whilst this burgeoning terminology reflects the difficulties and contradictions that qualitative methodologists have met in developing an overarching system for specifying quality (Seale, 1999), it also represents an essential first step towards defining the autonomous status of qualitative research (Morse, 2002). These criteria are in fact fundamental to judge the rigor or, better, trustworthiness and attentiveness of qualitative