Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Research on English Language Education JOEY : Journal of English Ibrahimy
Mohamad Yunus Laia
Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara
Education Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Neuroscience Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Reconceptualizing the Validity of Cross-Paradigm Research through a Critical Review of Reliability, Credibility, and Trustworthiness Mohamad Yunus Laia; Rahmah Fithriani; Amirul Mukminin; Saiful Anwar Matondang
JOEY: Journal of English Ibrahimy Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): JOEY:Journal of English Ibrahimy
Publisher : Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, Universitas Ibrahimy

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35316/joey.2026.v5i1.67-80

Abstract

The This study aims to reconceptualize the validity of cross-paradigm research through a critical examination of the evolution of the meaning and function of reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness in the methodological literature. This study departs from the problem of conceptual fragmentation and epistemological tension that arise due to the application of validity criteria ahistorically and procedurally in various research paradigms. The method used is a non-systematic literature review of conceptually relevant Scopus indexed journal articles, with a thematic-conceptual analysis approach and cross-paradigm critical synthesis. The results of the study show that validity has shifted from technical-instrumental attributes to epistemic justification processes that are contextual, reflective, and paradigmatic. Reliability no longer serves as a universal prerequisite for validity, but rather as a technical mechanism whose relevance depends on certain epistemological assumptions. Credibility develops as an interpretive justification mechanism in qualitative research, while trustworthiness serves as a reflective evaluative framework that emphasizes transparency and accountability. This study also found epistemological tensions, conceptual inconsistencies, and theoretical limitations in the use of these three concepts across paradigms. In conclusion, the validity of research needs to be understood as a dynamic practice of epistemic justification and not reduced to a methodological checklist. This research contributes to the development of research methodology by offering a conceptual synthesis that goes beyond the classical dichotomy of validity–reliability and trustworthiness–credibility.
REFORMULATING EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION IN FOUNDATIONALISM AND COHERENTISM THROUGH A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY EPISTEMOLOGICAL LITERATURE Mohamad Yunus Laia; Efendi Barus; Purwanto Siwi; Nuzwaty
Research on English Language Education Vol 8 No 2 (2026): Research on English Language Education
Publisher : Universitas Nias Raya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.57094/relation.v8i2.5716

Abstract

This research aims to reformulate the understanding of epistemic justification through a comparative analysis of revisional foundationalism and coherentism in the contemporary epistemological literature. The main focus of the research is directed at how basic assumptions regarding foundation, coherence, epistemic regression, and justification normativity are revised, what conceptual and metajustificative limitations remain, as well as how comparative synthesis allows for the formulation of a framework of justification that goes beyond classical dichotomies without falling into dogmatism or epistemic relativism. The method used is a non-systematic literature review of relevant Scopus indexed journal articles, with conceptual content analysis and argumentative comparison as the main techniques. The results show that foundationalism and coherentism are both significantly revised: foundations are understood as a fallible and revisable source of initial legitimacy, coherence is reconstructed as a multidimensional normative structure, and epistemic regression is treated as a reflexively managed structural phenomenon. However, the study also found that these revisions have not completely solved the problem of epistemic justification because they still leave metajustificative limitations, especially related to the basis of normativity. This study concludes that epistemic justification in contemporary epistemology is best understood as a dynamic and pluralistic normative process, and contributes by systematically mapping patterns of conceptual revision that go beyond the foundationalism–coherentism dichotomy.
Co-Authors Amirul Mukminin Efendi Barus Nuzwaty Purwanto Siwi Rahmah Fithriani Saiful Anwar Matondang