Qualitative methods were applied for this research. These involved participant observations, unstructured interviews, case studies and focus group meeting (De Vaus, 2002, p.5). Qualitative methods can produce rich data about real people as recorded using observation and interaction (Richards, 2009, p.35) and therefore a qualitative research approach links well with the premises of SLA. Although qualitative research data can be highly varied in origin, style including being uneven in detail and dissimilar in source and reliability, it examines the ―how, what, and where‖ of things and their essence (Berg, 2009, Richard, 2009, p.35). This does not mean neat and tidy data can never provide good analysis, inferences and assumptions. However, Berg (2009) argues that the significance of qualitative research is that it gives ―more meaning in itself, to the concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols and observatory description of things‖. Therefore, it was appropriate to use qualitative research methods for this study since the assessment of educational institutions within Porgera involved various participants who were both literate and illiterate. Also qualitative research methods ability to assess the quality of things using words, images and descriptive analysis convinced me most to use this method. More so, this methods use of participant observations, unstructured interviews, case studies and focus groups and their ability to cut across disciplines and subject matters was considered appropriate (De Vaus, 2002, p.5, Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p.3). In other words, qualitative research locates the observer in a world consisting of a set of interpretive material practices that make the world visible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 as cited by Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009, p.7). Therefore much qualitative research seeks to make sense of the way themes and meanings are patterned according to categories
(Richards, 2009 p.38). The two main methods of qualitative research used for this research are explained further below.
4.5.1. Semi-Structured Interviews
The main method used in this study was semi-structured interviews. Semi structured interviews enable participants (both interviewers and interviewees) to discuss and interpret the world in which they lived, and to express how they regard situations from their own experiences and perspectives (Cohen, et al, 2000, p.267). This means an interview does not simply concerned with collecting data about life but explores embedded human experiences (Cohen et al, 2000, p.267). Kvale (1996) as cited by Cohen et al., 2000, p.272) noted a key characteristic of qualitative research interviews as ‗life world‘, or the lived world of the subjects and their relation to it. This means interviews seek to interpret the meaning of central themes in the real world. This involves seeking qualitative knowledge expressed in normal language that is often descriptive, offering a variety of views of the same world, including positive experiences and the building of relationships.
As a Melanesian researcher, developing relationships was paramount for me. Semi- structured interviews were a tool that drew me into closer contact with my research participants so that I was able to develop relationships that opened up new horizons for data collection. The semi-structured nature of the interviews also enabled research participants to use their time with me as a method of airing their grievances, suggestions and solutions on issues that had been bothering them. Participants might have felt the findings of this project could open up opportunities for new development. For example, they may have been helped through the interview process to realize what has been working well in their communities and what was supposed to have been done but remained undone. This learning process on unfinished businesses was even more important during the interviews process because it took place while the participants still had the opportunity to address these issues before the mine closed down.
4.5.2. Participant Observation
Some authors argue that all research is a form of participant observation since we cannot study the world without being part of it (Cohen et al., 2000, p.305). I envisaged that an observational method was appropriate as I would observe what was ‗on the ground‘, as compared to what was said by the respondents. The participatory observation method was a good match for this research as a lot of issues I asked about were either avoided or not discussed during the interviews due to sensitivity of the issues. Many of the participants felt reluctant to express their thoughts, perhaps because there was a likelihood of blaming each other. The data collected was therefore ―observational‖ in nature, because I did not attempt to manipulate the situation (see Barrow & Rouse, 2005, p.10). In fact, most of the literature on the effects of educational input relies on observational data; typically because they are the most readily available data. However, the fundamental problem with observational data is that individuals choose their situations, such that the researcher must control for all the factors that led the individual to make their specific choice, as these factors might also be correlated with the outcome of interest to the researcher (Barrow & Rouse, 2005, p.10).
Whilst observations require explanations, it is equally true that explanations need to be tested against the facts. It is not enough to simply collect the facts, nor is it sufficient to simply develop explanations without testing them against facts (De Vaus, 2002, p.9). What makes observational data attractive is that they afford the researcher the opportunity to gather ‗live data from live situations‘ (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 305). Furthermore, observational methods of research give the researcher an opportunity to look at what is taking place and what has taken place, rather than relying on second- hand information. Having used observation as one of my primary methods made it possible to understand the context; as Cohen et al. argue, observation makes it possible to see unconsciously missed things, discover things the participant did not freely talk about and move beyond perception-based data (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 305). Significantly, observed incidents are less predictable and there is certain freshness to this form that is often denied in other forms of research (Cohen et al., 2000, p.305). According to Morrison (1993) cited by Cohen et al, (2000, p.305), observations enable a researcher to gather data on the physical setting (physical environments),
human setting (people, gender, behaviours), interactional setting (interactions within) and programme setting (resources, organization). Since many people using qualitative approaches view observations as a powerful tool for gaining insight into situations (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 315), I decided to capitalise on this method as one of the primary means of conducting this research.