DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Gray (2009) defines data analysis a process of giving arrangements, categories, and meanings to data generated in a research study through an organised but laborious process. One approach of analysing qualitative data is thematic analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Hayes, 1997; Creswell, 2009; Braun & Clarke, 2006) which I adopted in this study. Thematic analysis is a qualitative data analysis method that involves recognising and isolating, examining and reporting on themes, patterns and categories as they emerge from the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis is applicable for data from different instruments with participants in different environments,

130

effectively, and it reflects the reality of the data generated (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Hayes, 1997 & Creswell, 2009).

Merriam (1998) advises that generating and analysing qualitative data simultaneously is most appropriate, since it assists the researcher to remain focused when generating more data. Once the data were generated, I started transcribing and preliminary analysis began. Data analysis in qualitative research means that there is an inextricable relationship between data generation and data analysis. This means that as data was being generated, the process of analysing also commenced. It was during this time that I read the transcripts and made notes and reflections of what had been read. Marshall and Rossman (1999) caution that, when data becomes voluminous, it can be overwhelming and suggest that the researcher uses the preparatory research questions and introductory review of literature that was established in the research proposal, to chart a way forward in the data analysis process. This view is shared by Cohen et al. (2011), who posit that it is not surprising for qualitative studies to gather enormous amounts of data which can lead to data overload. To circumvent this, the researcher needs to begin early to analyse the data. I then grouped data into themes, categories, subgroups and subthemes through underlining similitude, dissimilarity and any interrelation, connections, inconsistencies and incongruity in participants’ responses. I used a model of thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006) and supported by Miles and Huberman (1994) which is detailed below:

Familiarising self with data: I listened to the recordings, transcribed all interviews, read and re-

read transcriptions and data gathered through document analysis in written format, to get a thorough comprehension of the content of the data. Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to the first step as data reduction, which means to analyse the generated data word-for-word.

Generating initial themes: Once I had familiarised myself with the data, I used manual coding to

locate lead codes that gave direction and suggestion of the discussion between myself and the participants. At this stage I highlighted and underlined the data, which meant taking excerpts from the participants’ full text (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Searching for themes: In this step, I began to interpret the codes that I had arranged. While alluding

my thought processes between codes, themes and subthemes, I sorted data I had extracted and organised into themes. Using domain analysis (Cohen et al. (2011), which is described as grouping

131

together items and units into related clusters, themes and patterns, a domain being a category which contains several other categories, I established themes, which meant breaking the data into smaller segments, making them clearer and more understandable (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Reviewing themes: It was at this stage where I had to decide whether to merge, brush up, split up

or reject preliminary themes. While there should be coherence between data themes, there also needs to be evident and identifiable differences between the themes. Through searching the data, I evaluated plausibility of my developing understanding of the themes. This entailed searching through the data during which I challenged my understanding by searching for negative instances of the patterns and incorporating these into larger constructs (De Vos, 2010). I ensured that the themes related to the highlighted and underlined extracts in all the data sets. I generated a thematic ‘map’ to guide me in clearly distinguishing the themes. Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to this stage as evaluating the themes. This means ensuring that all themes represent the entire text of generated data. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest involving an outside reviewer at this stage. The aim is to build trustworthiness in theme coding.

Defining and naming themes: At this stage, I further enhanced the themes by naming them with

concise statements that give meaning to the content of the theme. Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to this stage as data display. This stage helps to view and enhance the data more clearly for the study and to avoid data overload. The intention of displaying the data is to give meaning to the data generated.

Producing the report: At this stage, I rearranged the analysis into a readable report by relating the

analysis content to the research questions, literature and the theoretical framework, by not merely describing the themes, but discussing and supporting them with evidence from the generated data that responded to the research questions. Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to this stage as drawing conclusions, which means identifying interrelations between data generated and literature while building a coherent and consistent piece of writing that fits with the theoretical framework of the study.

132

4.8. TRUSTWORTHINESS

Trustworthiness refers to the trust and assurance that a researcher has for their study and its findings which is defined by the reviewers and evaluators of the study (Robson, 2011). The concept of trustworthiness is a highly significant aspect of qualitative research (Nieuwenhuis, 2010). Trustworthiness may be described as fitting between what is recorded by the researcher as data and the actual occurrences in the field being researched (Cohen et al., 2007). Lincoln and Guba (1985) assert that trustworthiness is about ways in which the researcher convinces the reader that the findings are trustworthy and the entire research report is worth reading. When the study findings are perceived to match real life experiences, then they are trustworthy (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). To ensure the trustworthiness of a study, qualitative researchers prefer credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Guba & Lincoln, 1985; Krefting, 1991; Creswell, 1998). I used the following strategies, as guided by Guba and Lincoln (1985).

Credibility: Credibility refers to the degree at which the findings of a research come close to reality

and are judged trustworthy and reasonable (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Member checking is one of the primary methods of ascertaining credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This is the process where the researcher verifies their accurate understanding of participants’ responses (Nieuwenhuis, 2011). McMillan and Schumacher (2010) refer to this as confirmation by participants. In this instance, after each interview, I transcribed and sent the transcripts back to all participants so they could verify their responses. Fortunately, participants did not divert from the responses they had given. This activity allowed the circumvention of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what the participants had brought to the understanding of the phenomenon of the study.

Transferability: Transferability refers to the ability to generalise the research findings into other

contexts beyond the study (Christiansen, Bertram & Land, 2010). To enhance transferability, I detailed the research methods, contexts and assumptions underlying the study, gave a complete depiction of the context of the study and made transparent the methodology, methods, tools, analysis and procedures the study followed. Although, in the quantitative approach, the researchers try to illustrate how their findings can be generalised within the population that was studied, in some qualitative studies, the responsibility to decide on the transferability of the findings remains with the reader (Babbie et al., 2004). It is through thick descriptions of data from each case that

133

readers can make their own judgements on transferability of the findings (Gray, 2004). In this study, it is through the purposive selection of both the circuit and the researched schools (see sections 4.4 and 4.5), as well as the provision of thick descriptions of data that the reader can make their own judgements on the transferability of the research findings. Guba and Lincoln (1985) concur that in qualitative research, thick descriptions and purposive sampling may establish transferability. If the findings are credible and transferable, they are also likely to be dependable and confirmable (Babbie et al., 2004).

Dependability: Merriam (1998) defines dependability as a technique of trustworthiness that

establishes the research findings as consistent and repeatable. To achieve dependability, I explained the theoretical orientation of the study from the beginning. To avoid common mistakes posing a threat to trustworthiness, I obtained data using multiple sources, which is referred to as triangulation; I did crosschecking and verified data by listening to the audio-recorded interviews with the individual participants to authenticate, add to or subtract to what they said (Heck, 2011). I also presented data generated through verbatim quotations.

Confirmability: Refers to the extent to which research findings can be corroborated by other people

and the generated data (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Seale, 1999). Confirmability is the degree of how the data and the findings agree with one another. I detailed the process of data generation, data analysis and the interpretation of data, did member checks, verified authentic data, kept notes on judgements I made regarding the data, made sure of uniformity in coding data (Nieuwenhuis, 2011), minimised researcher bias and avoided generalisation.

Ethical issues deal with concerns around harm, personal and professional sensitivity to the research participants. The subsequent section discusses ethical issues that were observed during the study.