Challenges experienced during data collection

It was difficult to manage the data collection process because of conflict in work schedules between the researcher and the participants. Often walk-in clients or other work duties interfered with the flow of the interview and observation process and in one instance, the observation had to be rescheduled on another day. This affected the rapport already established between the researcher and the participant.

Gatekeeper permission was another limiting factor to the timeous arrangement of the pre-data collection process. The university ethics committee often requires gatekeeper permission prior to issuing ethical clearance for the study while gatekeepers of institutions are reluctant to provide permission without the formalisation by the

57

university of the ethical clearance. Hence, both processes had to occur simultaneously, which resulted in extra time being required to facilitate this process. 3.3.7 Issues of trustworthiness

In seeking to establish the trustworthiness of a qualitative study, Lincoln and Guba (1985) use the terms ‘credibility’, ‘transferability’, ‘dependability’ and ‘confirmability’. The guidelines provided by Lincoln and Guba (1985) were used here.

3.3.7.1 Credibility

Credibility relates to how congruent the research findings are to reality (Merriam, 1998). Prolonged engagement, triangulation, peer debriefing, negative case analysis and member checking were all conducted to ensure that the credibility of the study data was achieved.

3.3.7.1.1 Prolonged engagement

I had professional relationships with all of the participants prior to the research process; therefore, engaging with them was relatively effortless and easy-going. I engaged and maintained contact with the participants prior to, during and after the data production period, which spanned a period of two years. This allowed time for reflection for myself as well as for the participants, for refinement of the data and to improve the quality of data production.

3.3.7.1.2 Triangulation

I gathered data from multiple sources through different data production methods over time, i.e. pre-observation interviews, video-recorded observation data and post- observation interviews. In doing so, I was able to get a fuller and richer picture of the phenomenon under study.

3.3.7.1.3 Peer debriefing

I engaged with a number of peers during the research process, mostly during the transcription process, the data representation and the analysis. Fellow doctoral students as well as well-established researchers were all involved in evaluating the processes that I followed. This challenged me throughout the process, which improved my skills as a qualitative researcher. It made me engage reflexively with the data and in this way, enhanced the credibility of the study.

58

3.3.7.1.4 Negative case analysis

The negative case analysis or the search for ‘atypical’ cases or the ‘outliers’ in this study involved searching for and discussing elements of the data that did not support or appear to contradict patterns or explanations that were emerging from the data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Two cases or participant narratives were identified to cross-check and validate the data analysis process (see section 7.4).

3.3.7.1.5 Member checking

Throughout the data production process, I used member checking in its various forms to ensure that it was the personal truth of the participants that I was capturing (Loh, 2013):

 While I conducted the interviews, I synthesised key points at certain times in order to check that my interpretation of the data was consistent with what the participants were saying.

 While transcribing the recorded data, I checked for accuracy of the actual words that had been said.

 I sent through the transcripts and the narratives to the participants for member checking. Feedback from these checks was incorporated in the final versions of the narratives.

3.3.7.2 Transferability

This refers to how ‘transferable’ the research findings are to other contexts (Firestone, 1993). Although transferability is not the imperative of qualitative research, the reader uses his or judgement to determine how he or she can relate to the research findings of the study.

3.3.7.2.1 Thick description

Thick descriptions of the empirical data were presented in the narratives of the participants in the description of the context, participants’ feelings, actions and experiences. The thick descriptions are important as they allow the reader into the world of the participant to understand the data better.

3.3.7.3 Dependability

To ensure that the study can be repeated in the future, I provide a detailed breakdown of the research process as well as the data production plan in Table 3.2. This speaks

59

to the replicability of the research methodology. It is important to be as detailed as possible so that future research can build on the current study. There has also been extensive discussion with my peers in the PhD cohort programme and I invited their comments regarding the research design. A critical appraisal of the study is offered in Chapter Nine.

3.3.7.4 Confirmability

Confirmability is the qualitative researcher’s comparable concern to objectivity within the positivist paradigm (Shenton, 2004). The audit trail followed, triangulation of data sources and researcher reflexivity all speak to the issue of confirmability.

3.3.7.4.1 Audit trail

This was done by providing a comprehensive research procedure protocol, which clearly outlined the processes followed when conducting this research. The decisions made in managing the data were outlined in section 3.3.2.4 for the purposes of transparency in documenting the data management process.

3.3.7.4.2 Triangulation

The purpose of triangulation was to reduce the effect of researcher bias (Shenton, 2004). A key feature for confirmability is the researcher’s awareness and the extent to which the researcher admits own predispositions (Miles & Huberman, 1994). To this effect, I have declared my positionality in conducting this research study. There were multiple data sources with which triangulation had been achieved.

3.3.7.4.3 Reflexivity

Researcher reflexivity was maintained throughout the study by being cognisant of personal biases and ways of thinking through the data production levels and in the data analysis. My concern was centred on how the presentation of my findings would suit my readers. I attempted to make this thesis as reader-friendly as possible. I reflected on my position as a researcher from an ontological and epistemological perspective. I was always guided by my critical questions, which guided me through these stages.