Data collection methods

The interpretivist framework, as well as the qualitative nature of this study, informed the data collection processes used. These were in-depth semi-structured interviews, focus group interviews, and self-administered questionnaires. Using different methods to collect data ensured that sufficient information was obtained with regards to Life Orientation teachers’ experiences of context and curriculum implementation in private and public schools, respectively, in the Western Cape.

3.4.4.1 Interviews

An interview, as defined by Bless & Higson-Smith (2000; 2004:104), “involves direct personal contact with the participant”.

Non-scheduled, semi-structured interviews were selected for this study (see Addenda E and

F), which are structured in the sense that, “a list of topics and questions are drawn up prior to the interview”, but are non-scheduled in the sense that, “the interviewer is free to formulate other questions as judged appropriate for a given situation” (Bless & Higson-Smith, 2000; 2004:105). This method of data collection is well-suited to the basic, qualitative research design within the interpretivist framework (as discussed in section 3.3), as it entails direct interaction with the participants of the study, allowing for in-depth exploration of the research topic through open-ended and flexible questioning techniques, thus allowing the researcher to “[learn] how individuals experience and interact with their social world” (Merriam, 2002:4).

3.4.4.2 Focus group interviews

“[Focus group interviews] are useful where a group of people have been working together for some time or common purpose, or where it is seen as important that everyone concerned is

aware of what others in the group are saying” (Cohen, et al., 2007:392). Focus groups are a

form of group interview, though not in the sense of a backwards and forwards between interviewer and group. Rather, “the reliance is on the interaction within the group who discuss a topic supplied by the researcher” (Cohen, et al., 2007:395), yielding a collective rather than individual view. Hence, the participants interact with each other rather than with the interviewer, so that the views of the participants can emerge – “the participants’ rather than the researcher’s agenda can predominate” (Cohen, et al., 2007:395). This method of data collection is well-suited to the study, as it allows for the subjective experiences of the participants to emerge where, “the actor’s perspective (the ‘insider’ or ‘emic’ view) is emphasised”, making use of the researcher as the “main instrument” in the research process (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:270). The contrived nature of these interviews is both their strength and their weakness: they are unnatural settings yet they are very focused on a particular issue and, therefore, will yield insights that might not otherwise have been available in a straight- forward interview (Cohen et al., 2007). In this study the focus group interviews consisted of semi-structured questions from an interview guide (see Addendum G), used to obtain in- depth information from teachers about their experiences of their context and the impact this has on their implementation of the Life Orientation curriculum. Although these interviews are economical in the sense that they produce a large amount of data in a short period of time, they tend to produce less data than interviews with the same number of individuals on a one- to-one basis would (Cohen et al., 2007:395). In an attempt to address this potential shortcoming, many of the questions from the self-administered questionnaires (discussed in the next section) were expanded upon in the focus groups. “Due to the fact that a self- administered questionnaire can be exploratory in nature, it can serve as a starting point for other methodologies” (Harris & Brown, 2010:2). Thus both interviews and questionnaires are an important means of obtaining direct responses from participants about their understandings, conceptions, beliefs, and attitudes (Harris & Brown, 2010).

3.4.4.3 Self-administered questionnaires

In keeping with the interpretivist methodology, participants were provided with an opportunity to describe their experiences and perceptions of context in their implementation of the Life Orientation curriculum through the completion of an open-ended questionnaire (see Addendum H). Open-ended questions, “enable participants to write a free account in their own terms, to explain and qualify their responses and avoid the limitations of pre-set categories of response” (Cohen et al, 2007:340). In addition, they allow time for reflection on the part of the participant, who is not under the same time response pressure as when in an individual or group interview. It is important to note that the questionnaire will always be an intrusion into the life of the respondent, be it in terms of time taken to complete, the level of threat or sensitivity of the questions, or the possible invasion of privacy (Cohen et al., 2007). Questionnaire respondents are not passive data providers for researchers, “they are subjects not objects of research” (Cohen et al., 2007:336). This once again emphasises the actor’s perspective (the ‘insider’ or ‘emic’ view) (Babbie & Mouton, 2001), highlighting the paradigmatic framework upon which this study is based.

3.4.5 Data Analysis

Data analysis is described by Thomas et al. (2005, as cited in Perry, 2010:49) as, “the process of making sense out of data”. In keeping with the, “fluid, flexible and non-sequential nature of qualitative design” (Durrheim, 2006; Pope, Ziebland & Mays, 2006, as cited in Perry 2010:49), various phases of data analysis were revisited in order to deepen, clarify, and adjust the researcher’s understanding of the emerging data. The phases of data analysis were conducted within the descriptive and interpretivist framework and design.

The data analysis began with the preparatory phase (Patton, 2002), in which data was organised, protected, and familiarised with. In-depth interviews were recorded on a portable voice recorder, and transcribed electronically, directly onto a laptop, where they were saved in a private and confidential folder. Through the process of transcribing the interviews, the researcher was able to familiarise herself with the data.

After this, the descriptive phase (Patton, 2002) of the data analysis process was entered. According to Patton (2002:50), the descriptive phase of data analysis entails, “the classification and coding of data”. During this phase the researcher engages in thematic analysis, which has the aim of, “searching for aggregated themes within data” (Gibson & Brown, 2009:127, as cited in Perry, 2010:52). The search for themes within the data was begun by reading and re-reading the researchers’ transcripts as well as field notes, in an attempt to locate commonalities, which ultimately emerged as themes. These themes were each assigned a colour and, through the process of grouping color-coded data, sub-themes began to emerge. Once categorised, the data could be interpreted. An example of the coding process can be found in Addendum I. Thomas et al. (2005, as cited in Perry, 2010:52) describe qualitative interpretation as merging data, “into a holistic portrayal of the phenomenon” in order to find both meaning and significance. This is known as the

interpretive phase (Patton, 2002). “Interpretation is a complex and dynamic craft, with as

much creative artistry as technical exactitude and it requires an abundance of patient plodding, fortitude, and discipline” (Schutt, 2011c:323).

The process of data analysis is not linear in nature, it is a cyclical process in which the researcher moves between phases, categorising and re-categorising, interpreting and re- interpreting, remaining emerged in the raw data at all times. “There are many changing rhythms; multiple steps; moments of jubilation, revelation, and exasperation” (Schutt, 2011c:323) and with this complex and somewhat subjective interpretation comes the drawing of results and conclusions. A great deal of attention is thus applied to reliability and validity in all research methods through the verification of emergent data (Morse, Barret, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002).

3.5 DATA VERIFICATION

Verification is the process of checking, confirming, making sure, and being certain (Morse, Barret, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). In qualitative research, verification refers to the, “mechanisms used during the process of research to incrementally contribute to ensuring reliability and validity and, thus, the rigor of a study” (Morse et. al., 2002:9). In seminal work in the 1980s, Guba and Lincoln (as cited in Shenton, 2004:64) substituted reliability and validity with the parallel concept of “trustworthiness”, containing four aspects:

a) Credibility (in preference to internal validity);

b) Transferability (in preference to external validity/generalizability); c) Dependability (in preference to reliability); and

d) Confirmability (in preference to objectivity).

These aspects will be discussed in more detail below.

3.5.1 Credibility

Credibility refers to the believability of the findings and is enhanced by evidence such as, “confirming evaluation of conclusions by research participants, convergence of multiple sources of evidence, control of unwanted influences and theoretical fit” (Schutt, 2011c:363). In order to ensure the credibility of the study, the researcher engaged in peer examination – allowing for conclusions to be evaluated by an external party – as well as the auditing and triangulation of data, which allowed for the convergence of three sources of data (tabulated and appended) for enhanced credibility of the research study. These data verification strategies will be discussed in more detail in section 3.6.

3.5.2 Transferability

Transferability refers to, “evidence supporting the generalization of findings to other contexts – across different participants, groups, situations, and so forth” (Schutt, 2011c:363). Generalisation in this sense refers to the, “extent to which the interpretive account can be applied to other contexts than the one being researched” (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999:431). Because of the contextual nature of interpretive research, there are usually strong limits to the generalizability of the research findings. Although the findings of this study may not be generalizable, they are transferable in the sense that they may inform further study on the topic, using different research designs. In an attempt to enhance the generalizability and transferability of the study, thick descriptions of the findings have been provided, as well as of the research design.

3.5.3 Dependability

To check the dependability of a qualitative study, one must look to see if the researcher has been careless or made mistakes in conceptualising the study, collecting the data, interpreting the findings, and reporting the results (Williams, 2011). A recommended verification strategy is leaving an audit trail, such as reflective notes and commentary as well as raw data and reports detailing the research process. If the researcher does not maintain any kind of audit trail, the dependability cannot be assessed and the dependability and trustworthiness of the study are diminished (Williams, 2011).

“In order to address the dependability issue more directly, the processes within the study should be reported in detail, thereby enabling a future researcher to repeat the work, if not necessarily to gain the same results…Such in-depth coverage also allows the reader to assess the extent to which proper research practices have been followed” (Shenton, 2004:71).

The issue of dependability was addressed in this particular research study through the provision of raw data – such as original transcripts and data analysis tables (see Addenda I and J) – as well as reflective notes (see chapter 5).

3.5.4 Confirmability

Confirmability refers to objectivity (neutrality) and the control of researcher bias. Bias in qualitative research is an ever-present concern, but unbiased interpretations are more likely once the researcher’s self-reflection recognises them overtly and factors them into the design (Schutt, 2011b). In this research a reflective report was used (see discussion in section 5.8), as well as various data verification strategies, such as peer review (through supervisor input and discussion), and data triangulation (by using various data collection techniques) in order to enhance the confirmability of the study.

3.6 DATA VERIFICATION STRATEGIES