Data collection techniques and procedures

I used two data collection techniques for this study, as illustrated in Table 3.2 below. Table 3.2: Data collection techniques and participants

Data collection technique Participants/data source Number of participants/extent of data source

Individual semi-structured

interviews -_- Male dropouts _{School principals} - WCED representative

- 17 - 2 - 2 Focus groups - Teachers

- Parents/guardians

- 17 - 11

As illustrated in Table 3.2, individual semi-structured interviews were used for the individual interviews with the male dropouts, school principals and WCED representatives. For the teacher and parent participants I used focus group discussions. All participants received an introductory letter (Appendix A) before the actual interview and signed a consent form

(Appendix C) before engaging in an interview. Both these documents, as well as the interview schedules (Appendices D, F and G) were available in both Afrikaans and English, although only the English versions were included as appendices to this thesis. In the next section I provide a detailed discussion of each of these data collection techniques and explain how I utilised them in this study.

3.4.2.1 Individual semi-structured interviews

I conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with the 17 male dropout participants, the two school principals and the two WCED representatives who were part of the sample population. Using semi-structured interviews is a preferred data gathering method in qualitative studies as it offers participants the opportunity to speak for themselves, as opposed to answering a predetermined selection of hypothesis-based questions which needs to be answered (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). Therefore, the use of individual interviews offered me the opportunity to collect information regarding the subjective views and experiences of the male dropouts, school principals and WCED representatives regarding the phenomenon under study. Some of the SA studies on school dropout which I referred to earlier (Bingma, 2012; Dekeza-Tsomo, 2012; Ingles, 2009) also utilised individual interviews, involving dropouts and individuals at risk of dropping out. As an example, Ingles (2009) conducted individual interviews with learners who were classified as at risk of dropping out of school and this enabled the researcher to collect the data needed for the study.

The individual interviews worked well as they gave me an opportunity to have face-to-face interaction with the specific participants. I made sure that the participants understood the aim of the contact and interviews, and more importantly that they understood the questions. I could also probe and explore the areas which I deemed noteworthy. In his study on sexual offenders, Gxubane (2012) found individual interviews to be particularly useful for these same reasons. I conducted each of the 21 individual interviews on my own and each interview was 30-90 minutes long. Generally, the interviews with the male dropouts took 30-45 minutes and with the school principals and WCED representatives they took 60-90 minutes. The interviews were conducted in a space that the interviewees choose, including homes, the school and the EMDC area office. The interviews were conducted in the home language of the participants, which was Afrikaans for all the participants, except one whose home language was Xhosa, and he preferred to do the interview in English. My ability to speak both Afrikaans and English, and even some words in the dialect of Afrikaans which most of the

participants spoke, was put to good use. Each interview was also recorded with the participant's permission where after it was transcribed.

The framework for the individual interviews was an interview guide that I had developed for each of the participant groups (Appendices D, F and G). I started each of the interviews with a standard explanation of the goal and format of the interview. This ‘softer' side of the interview helped to convince the participants that they were assisting me in learning more about the topic under discussion and that they were contributing towards the understanding of dropout in their community and in the country as a whole. More specifically, I found the framework for interview questions provided by Charmaz (cited in Henning et al., 2005) very helpful in constructing the questions for my interviews. A characteristic of these questions is that they strike the balance between being open enough that every participant can provide his/her unique insight but structured enough that topics as raised by the participant is explored in depth. For example, I deliberately directed the questions on certain topics at the individual's own experience and then explored these answers by asking more questions relating to the answers. I specifically tried to make this tone different from that of the interview schedules used in the South African and African studies I refer to throughout this study. As an example, Dekeza-Tsomo (2012) explored specific themes like grade repetition, poverty (school fees and transport to school), HIV/AIDS, pregnancy, death of parents, absenteeism and school attendance. Similarly, Ingles (2009) explored what respondents do during their spare time, how frequently they were absent, their relationship with teachers, and the kind of support that was available to them. Bingma (2012) held interviews with male dropouts and asked respondents predetermined questions regarding the way they spend their time with friends, their school attendance records, as well as their attitudes towards substance abuse. All these questions were in a sense aimed at getting a confirmation of specific factors which could or could not be related to school dropout. This is not what I aimed to do; rather, I wanted to provide a structure wherein participants could present their own ideas and experiences and then explore these according to a predetermined framework. This structure is basically the categories which I used to order the literature in Chapter 2. These individual and institutional factors (school and family) provided the context wherein respondents could give their own perspectives (see Rumberger & Lim, 2008). Therefore, the interview guides which I developed and used were structured under individual, family, school and general sections. Under each of these sections I asked general, open-ended questions through which I then further explored as respondents provided their perspectives and experiences within each of

these contexts. Finally, I also followed Bergman's (cited in Henning et al., 2005, p. 79) advice of "getting your foot in the door" by starting with the ‘easier', less threatening themes and then easing into the more difficult ones. For the male dropouts, this entailed starting with the school factors and then moving to family and finally the individual factors (themselves). In the school principals' case, I started with the individual factors (of the male dropouts) and then move to family and community factors and finally the school. With most of the individual interviews, the strategies I followed seemed to work well as participants freely engaged in the conversations which produced in-depth data about the influences on school dropout. I restated and summarised the information as received from participants to determine the accuracy of the information and my understanding thereof. This contributed to the quality of data that I collected.

3.4.2.2 Focus groups

I conducted two focus groups with each of the teacher and parent participant groups. Morgan (cited in Babbie & Mouton, 2001) advises that three to five groups are ideal and that more groups will seldom provide new insights. Although I did not conduct as many focus groups as this with each of the involved groups, I found that the two discussions per participant group were sufficient as there was a strong correlation in the data collected. Due to known and unknown factors, the researchers in the South African and African studies on school dropout (Dekeza-Tsomo, 2012; Ingles, 2009; Munsaka, 2009) conducted only one focus group with each of their sample populations. Thus, it also seems as if this study is adding a new depth to this kind of data as I conducted more focus groups.

Through the focus group discussions I could draw upon participants' attitudes, feelings, beliefs and experiences in a way which is not possible through individual interviews or other techniques. The teacher participants seemed to find the group valuable as it offered them the opportunity to talk about a topic that they apparently never talk about, although it is such a prominent feature in their schools. These discussions generated a diverse range of perspectives around the topic which contributed to the richness of the data (Henning et al., 2005). The parents, on the other hand, seemed to experience the group discussion as a space where they could get together and "create meaning among themselves, rather than individually" (Babbie & Mouton, 2001, p. 292). More specifically, many of the parent participants felt as if they had been unfairly treated by the schools, which in many cases, did not allow their children at the school during the time before they dropped out. Combined,

these dynamics experienced by the teacher and parent participants gave me the opportunity to get a deeper understanding of the perceptions and beliefs of the participants regarding school dropout and, in the words of Babbie and Mouton (2001), to "find information [I] would not otherwise be able to access". This is especially true when looking at the findings as discussed in the next two chapters, as some of them have not featured in previous SA studies.

Another advantage of the focus groups is that they allowed me to collect a large amount of data in a short period of time. Each of the four focus groups took 90-120 minutes and for the number of participants and data I could gather in these time frames it was time well spent. Terhoeven (2009) conducted a focus group with a Teacher Support Team as "it was a way of saving time for teachers" (pp. 51-52) and I also found it useful for the same reason. Some of the other South African and African studies on school dropout to which I referred earlier (Dekeza-Tsomo, 2012; Ingles, 2009; Munsaka, 2009) also utilised focus groups as a data collection tool for their studies.

There are a few technical aspects related to the use of focus groups which I kept in mind while preparing and engaging in this process. Firstly, I aimed to recruit between six and ten members for each of the focus groups, in line with the ideal size as prescribed by Babbie and Mouton (2001). With the exception of the one parent group that comprised only five participants, the size of all the other groups was between these prescribed guidelines (seven on average) and this worked well as the discussions did not fall flat when some members decided to remain silent and not engage in the discussion. On the other hand, there were not too many members. If the group is too large, it becomes difficult to manage as participants might break off into smaller discussion groups. One of the reasons why I managed to recruit this ideal number of participants was that I followed Morgan's guideline (cited in Babbie & Mouton, 2001, p. 292) to "over-recruit by 20 per cent to compensate for members not showing up". Further, I conducted the focus group with the teachers during the time of the school examinations as this is a time that teachers are usually more relaxed. Overall, the aforementioned strategies enabled me to get the most out of the focus groups with the teachers and parents.

As in the case of the individual interviews, I compiled discussion guides to provide the direction for the focus groups (Appendices E and H). All the guides consisted of open-ended questions to offer group members the opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions around the topic under discussion. Very similar to the individual interviews, Munsaka's (2009) group

discussion guide with the dropouts consisted of eight questions which mostly focused on specific themes, including career aspirations, their family's support in their pursuit of education, the custom of forced marriages, and young people's integration into society as adults. One question referred to a factor which was raised in the individual interviews and I decided to possibly add something like this at a later stage. Again, I aimed not to ask specific questions but rather to provide the structure within the individual and institutional factors and then explore the topics as raised by the participants.

Finally, both group discussions with the teachers were held at the relevant schools. The one parent group discussion was held at the home of a parent in the community and the other at the school as the parents felt it was a neutral space, knowing that there would not be any teachers after hours at the school. I had to arrange with the school that they would open a classroom for me after hours where we conducted this group. This parent group was the one that consisted of only five members. Upon reflecting on this matter I realised that the poor attendance might have been because we had the meeting at the school and everyone did not feel comfortable meeting there because of negative past experiences with the school. I started each of the group discussions by discussing the guidelines and establishing the rules for the conversation. This included an opportunity for everyone to speak and respecting one another's viewpoints and opinions. The primary language for all four group discussions was the primary language of the participants, who were mostly Afrikaans-speaking. There were two participants in one of the teacher groups who preferred to speak in English but they also taught in Afrikaans at their schools and therefore could understand what everyone said. As mentioned earlier, I am fluent in both these languages and therefore could facilitate the discussions with ease.