5.4.1.1 Adherence to ethical guidelines
The study adhered to the ethical guidelines discussed in Chapter Three (see 3.8.2) as set out in the HPCSA form 223 Appendix 12, Chapter 10. This included receiving written approval from the University of Johannesburg before conducting the study and receiving written consent from the school principal (to conduct the study at the school) and from all the participants involved in the study (for their participation). Participants also gave their written consent for interview
96
sessions to be recorded. Even though Michael did not personally participate in the study, his assent was also given for team members to discuss him as a case for this study.
I provided participants with a clear understanding of the nature of the study, and what was required from them. I also made it clear that participants were free to decline from participating and could withdraw from the study at any time. Participants were provided with confidentiality forms, declaring that information discussed in the focus group would remain confidential. The school’s name was not mentioned in the study and all participants were provided with pseudonyms in order to ensure confidentiality. Information gained from records and reports were kept behind lock and key at all times.
5.4.1.2 Variety of data sources used
Ravitch and Carl (2015) suggest triangulation of various data sources as a means to ensure the data’s stability over time. The various forms of data sources that I referred to in the data analysis process such as qualitative rating scales and questionnaires, individual interviews, document review, as well as the focus group interview, allowed for thick description and confirmation of insights obtained from participants.
5.4.1.3 Procedures followed for case selection
Selecting a case through purposive sampling requires of the researcher to select participants “based on particular features or characteristics, allowing for detailed exploration and understanding of the central themes and questions highlighted in this study” (Ritchie et al., 2013, p. 113). The procedures for the case selection were well thought out and the various data sources such as the rating scales, parental interviews and relevant documents made it possible to objectively justify and confirm the set criteria found in literature with regards to signs of resilience and the implementation of the transdisciplinary approach (see Chapter Three, 3.4).
The criteria set out in accordance with the resilience theory discussed in Chapter Two (see 2.3) suggested that the identified learner had to show signs of positive outcomes achieved in spite of evidently presenting with SpLD and have passed Grade 1 and currently be in Grade 2. The criteria set out in accordance with the definition of the transdisciplinary approach (also discussed in Chapter Two, 2.8.2) required of the selected case to show evidence of support provided through the implementation of the transdisciplinary approach, signs of collaboration between transdisciplinary team members and involvement of parents, care-givers/guardians in interventions. All the learners presented as possible candidates were considered fairly and a
97
final case was selected that best met the above-mentioned criteria as confirmed by the various data sources.
5.4.1.4 Description of context
Tight (2017) suggests the provision of a detailed description of the findings and context to make it possible for readers to compare the study to other contexts. This study provided a detailed description of the findings and the site where the research was conducted in Chapter Three (see 1.6), allowing the reader to compare their context to the environment of this particular remedial school.
5.4.1.5 Data collection process described and justified
Ravitch and Carl (2015) suggest that a research study is regarded as dependable when the data remains stable over time. This was ensured by the logical argument I provided for the data collection process in Chapter Three (see 3.5), ensuring that the data answers the research question. This was further ensured by triangulation between the different data sources used, as mentioned in 5.4.1.1.
5.4.1.6 Participation and openness in data collection process
By making sense of the findings through an interpretivist theoretical paradigm, I assumed that participants’ attitudes and beliefs are socially constructed. The focus group interviews made it possible for team members to hear one another’s perspectives and form their own opinions (Rossman & Rallis, 2017). I provided focus group participants with a possible agenda to discuss beforehand. This allowed me to observe them as they interacted freely with one another and gather rich data. Being a part-time employee at the school and having already established relationships with them, has contributed to their openness and willingness to participate in the findings collection process. This may however have caused me to be biased when interpreting findings, which may be regarded as one of the limitations to this study.
5.4.2 Limitations to the study 5.4.2.1 Research bias
Researchers are warned against the possible influence that their own subjective views may have on the research process (Ravitch & Carl, 2015). They are further advised to recognise the role of the self in qualitative research and to not neglect findings that do not fit the preferred analysis by considering rival explanations (Tight, 2017). I have had a pleasant working experience at
98
the school where the research was conducted up to this point. I also have good relationships with various staff members at the school.
I was therefore cognisant of the possibility of positive bias arising from my own personal experience and therefore possibly missing rival explanations that may not meet my preferred ideals regarding the school’s implementation of the transdisciplinary approach. In an attempt to guard against this possibility, I consulted with my research supervisor who challenged me to think critically. He encouraged me to also consider findings that are not in line with the practical implementation of the transdisciplinary approach according to literature or applicable to a mainstream environment.
I further practiced reflexivity by consciously self-reflecting on the influence that my own subjectivity may have on the research process as discussed in Chapter Three (see 3.9.4). I constantly took stock of my actions and role as a researcher being guided by the interpretivist theoretical paradigm as suggested by Ravitch and Carl (2015).
5.4.2.2 Failure of technology mediums used to record findings
I used my computer as well as my phone (as a back-up) to record the individual interviews with Michael’s mother. I noted that my phone ran out of space halfway through the interview but thought that I could rely on my computer to capture the findings. My computer worked in the past for recordings but when I played the recording back afterwards, there was no sound for some reason. I contacted an information technology specialist to rectify the problem who was unfortunately not able to.
I, luckily made thorough notes throughout which I shared with Michael’s mother shortly after the interview. She was provided with an opportunity to confirm whether my written recording was accurate, and to make additional notes where necessary.
5.4.2.3 Transferability
Transferability refers to how qualitative studies can be relevant and applicable to broader contexts, while still being true to the richness of its own context (Tight, 2017). Even though I provided a thorough background to the study and its context (see 5.4.1.3), teachers presented in the study mentioned various factors that worked to their advantage in the implementation of the transdisciplinary approach at this particular school, which may not be accessible in broader mainstream environments.
99
This included the professionals’ part of the transdisciplinary team who shared their knowledge and skills with others, such as the Educational Psychologist; Occupational Therapist and Speech and Language Therapist. Class-sizes were also smaller, freeing the teachers’ capacity to engage with learners on a one-on-one basis and to communicate with parents more regularly. These teachers taught at mainstream schools in the past and reported that it did not offer the resources and one-on-one contact with learners and parents found at this particular remedial school.
Findings revealed that team members trusted one another and followed through with suggested interventions even when it fell outside their scope of expertise (see 4.4.1.1 b & c). This may not be the case in other mainstream environments. A study mentioned in Chapter Two (see 2.9) identified challenges in the practical implementation of the transdisciplinary approach such as role-players primarily identifying with their own discipline and team members being uncomfortable with applying one another’s strategies when lacking relevant background knowledge to substantiate it (Cumming & Wong, 2012).
5.5 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY – A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE