Yvonna Lincoln & Egon Guba

Lincoln & Guba reject the positivist assumption of a single objective reality knowable independent of the inquirer. In the naturalistic paradigm, realities are multiple, constructed, and holistic; knower and known are interactive and inseparable; and inquiry is value-bound. Knowledge claims are therefore situated and interpretive rather than law-like generalizations. Contemporary methodological reviews continue to operationalize this paradigm explicitly under "Lincoln and Guba's (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry" framing (Luong 2025, DOI 10.52296/vje.2025.426; Manikandan, A & Xavier 2026, DOI 10.25258/ijddt.16.36s.13). For a reviewer, F1 forces the question: *whose constructed reality does this space-policy claim represent, and was that construction made visible?*

Because positivist quality tests (validity, reliability, objectivity) presuppose a single reality, Lincoln & Guba proposed four naturalistic analogues that together constitute *trustworthiness*: (i) **credibility** - confidence that findings represent participants' realities (analogue of internal validity); (ii) **transferability** - the degree to which findings can apply in other contexts, established through "thick description" so the reader, not the author, judges fit (analogue of external validity); (iii) **dependability** - stability and traceability of the process over time (analogue of reliability); and (iv) **confirmability** - that findings are grounded in the data rather than the inquirer's bias (analogue of objectivity). The four criteria are the most-cited operational legacy of the framework and remain the standard checklist in current guidance (Korstjens & Moser 2017, DOI 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092; Ahmed 2024, DOI 10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051; Kakar, Rasheed & Rashid 2023, DOI 10.56249/ijbr.03.01.44; Forero et al. 2018, DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2915-2).

Trustworthiness is not asserted; it is earned through procedures. Lincoln & Guba prescribe specific techniques: prolonged engagement and persistent observation, **triangulation** (of sources, methods, investigators), peer debriefing, negative-case analysis, **member checking** (returning findings to participants), thick description, and the **inquiry audit**. Modern rigor reviews catalog these same techniques as the indicators by which a qualitative study is judged (Johnson, Adkins & Chauvin 2020, DOI 10.5688/ajpe7120). The technique-to-criterion mapping is the diagnostic grid this reviewer applies to any interpretive study of space stakeholders.

The signature procedural contribution is the **audit trail**: a systematically maintained, inspectable record of raw data, data-reduction products, process notes, and methodological decisions that a disinterested auditor could follow to attest both dependability (the process) and confirmability (the product). The audit trail is what makes a constructivist study *accountable* without forcing it into positivist replication. The procedure has been formalized into step-by-step methodological guidance for practice (Carcary 2021, DOI 10.34190/jbrm.18.2.008). For a reviewer, F4 is the sharpest weapon: *show me the trail.*

In *Fourth Generation Evaluation* (1989), Lincoln & Guba reframe evaluation away from measurement-against-objectives toward a **negotiated construction** built from the **claims, concerns, and issues (CCIs)** of all stakeholders. Inquiry proceeds through a hermeneutic-dialectic circle in which divergent constructions are surfaced, compared, and worked toward a more informed and sophisticated joint construction - with explicit attention to power asymmetries among stakeholders. The empirical literature on stakeholder dialogue under conditions of value conflict directly continues this lineage (Cuppen 2011, "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue," DOI 10.1007/s11077-011-9141-7). CCI analysis is the lens this reviewer uses to test whether a space-governance proposal has genuinely represented contested stakeholder constructions or merely ratified the powerful.

Beyond the four trustworthiness criteria, Lincoln & Guba later advanced **authenticity criteria** grounded in the constructivist paradigm's own logic: *fairness* (even-handed representation of all constructions), *ontological authenticity* (participants' own constructions become more informed), *educative authenticity* (stakeholders better understand others' constructions), *catalytic authenticity* (the inquiry prompts action), and *tactical authenticity* (it empowers action). These criteria judge an inquiry not only by procedural rigor but by whether it fairly represented and empowered the full stakeholder set - a standard with obvious bite for space governance, where dominant spacefaring states and emerging space nations hold radically unequal voice (Smith, Rathnasabapathy & Wood 2024, DOI 10.1016/j.jsse.2024.08.009).