Feminist research has been accused, in a similar way to interpretivism and critical social science, of being wanting in the area of validity (Dallimore, 2000). To address the issue in the present research, with reference to Dallimore (2000) and Neuman (2000), collaboration, natural history, and member validation were applied.

In purposefully building rapport with participants, as consistent with a feminist approach, the researcher addressed validity through collaboration. The relevant industry experience of the researcher helped to frame the questions and assisted in drawing out rich and detailed responses. This personal interest could be perceived as providing potential for bias. This was readily acknowledged and in so doing the likelihood that it would be successfully managed was increased. Validity can also be demonstrated in the manner that the findings truly represent the views of the participants. In this research participants were offered the transcript to review and provide feedback on its accuracy. Only one woman chose to review the transcript and that participant did not request any changes to its content.

In the present research, the researcher has provided a detailed description of the philosophy, processes, methods and approaches in order to comply with a natural history test of validity (Neuman, 2000). The researcher set out to faithfully record all aspects of the research to ensure validity in the eyes of other readers.

The final method of validation used within this research was that of member validation. When the findings of the research are provided to the participants and they are able to identify their situation as reflected in the findings, its validity is supported. Member validation can, however, be difficult to achieve. Despite the research presenting a truthful portrayal, participants may have personal motivations for disagreeing with the findings. This was evidently not the case in the present research:

and: