Reliability refers to the accuracy or consistency of the data gathered to ensure repetition. In interpreting reliability, higher degrees of reliability imply the lower extent of intervention of bias during the collection and analysis of data. In the case of quantitative research, the treatment of data involved measures, which means the lesser intervention of researcher bias. However, with qualitative research, the data collection and analysis processes highly involves the researcher, which means higher possibility of researcher bias.
(Maxwell, 1996; Winter, 2000) Since the present study employed only the qualitative approach, reliability becomes an issue. To resolve this issue, the researcher used criteria in selecting the policies and employed three methods that involved specific criteria in analysing the data from relevant documents. By using criteria for analyses derived from literature, the researcher minimised the intervention of bias into the results of the study.
Validity means the trustworthiness of data and results of the study or how well the instruments or measures were able to handle the constructs, it was intended to cover. In quantitative studies, the researcher and the research setting affects the constructs because of the intervention of variables such as in experiments that could decrease the trustworthiness of data. However, in qualitative studies, the researcher investigates a phenomenon in its natural setting that increases the trustworthiness of data.
(Maxwell, 1996; Winter, 2000) Since the present study employed qualitative research, there arises an acceptable level of trustworthiness by studying policymaking on HIV/AIDS in an actual context, particularly South Africa and using the millennium development goals as the point of international influence on national policymaking. It is widely recognised that the main concern in any research involving human subjects is the protection of human rights (Polit & Hungler, 1995).
The principle-based approach is often applied in health care research, as it implements four prima facie ethical commitments, namely respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice (Beauchamp and Childress, 1989). Respect for autonomy implies that each respondent must be able to make an informed decision whether to participate in the research. The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence can often be considered together in order to provide a net benefit to study participants. The fourth principle of respecting justice refers to fairness in distribution of health care resources, also referred to as distributive justice.
The probability of having ethical issues in this study is not likely to occur because there are no animal or human involvement in the research process since the data collection method is document analysis. The ethical approval process emerged as a means of respecting the interests of people involved or participating in the research process. However, because there is no human involvement in the study, ethical approval was not deemed necessary to obtain for the research. The occurrence of ethical conflicts did not happen because of lack of human involvement.