Drawing on broader postcolonial theories and critiques of established validity frameworks, this study introduces ‘Post-Oriental Validity’ as a framework designed specifically for evaluating qualitative research conducted in Asian contexts. It extends the existing discussion of validity claims by providing alternative and supplemental knowledge on validity theorization. Based on a content analysis of various qualitative research studies on Korea, this study proposes five new ideas of validity—Neg…
Read moreDrawing on broader postcolonial theories and critiques of established validity frameworks, this study introduces ‘Post-Oriental Validity’ as a framework designed specifically for evaluating qualitative research conducted in Asian contexts. It extends the existing discussion of validity claims by providing alternative and supplemental knowledge on validity theorization. Based on a content analysis of various qualitative research studies on Korea, this study proposes five new ideas of validity—Negative Representation Validity, Subaltern Validity, Hybridity Validity, Subversion Validity, and Abjection Validity—each addressing the limitations of existing concepts of validity and emphasizing the importance of cultural, historical, and epistemological contexts specific to non-Western societies. By developing the Post-Oriental Validity framework, this study enhances validity discourses in qualitative research by explicitly operationalizing epistemological pluralism and theoretical openness informed by, yet distinct from, traditional postcolonial critiques. It also offers practical insights for researchers seeking to design, conduct, and evaluate qualitative studies that reflect localized epistemologies and cultural specificities, thereby extending its relevance beyond Asian contexts.