Data Gathering Methods and Procedures

In this research I sought to provide evidence for the experiences of at-riskiness; the phenomenon under investigation for potential quantitative research (Polkinghorne, 2005: 138). My data gathering methods and procedures’ objectives achieved this through captured words for my data/words from explanations of accounts participants gave of their experiences, from

122

which I drew excerpts of the data to illustrate the findings from the verbal evidential data. I initiated the process by first presenting open-ended questions to the participants, according to the McAdams’ (1995) framework (see Appendix G). The participants responded to my semi- structured life-story interview open-ended questions on their educational life-story interviews within the Chitungwizan schools; the researched phenomenon’s natural setting for these participants (Iacono, Brown & Holtham, 2009). The semi-structured life-story interview is defined as a method of data collection through asking in-depth questions to the participants in personal and intimate face-to-face sessions (Polit & Beck, 2006). I asked open, direct, verbal questions that elicited detailed narratives and stories (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006) and also empowered the respondents as active participants who retained their choice on how much they wanted to state to me. When I probed after reflecting on their circumstances they freely explained why things were the way they stood during the time of the fieldwork.

Individual narratives provided the main form of data in this study. This was the preferred approach for this oral data (Brikci & Green, 2007). Brikci and Green (2007) further justify oral data from narratives as an ideal way of understanding more about a sample because it is naturally flexible. They add that narratives enable the researcher to listen to stories that participants tell, what they will complain about, and what can and what cannot be said in various situations. Furthermore, one could approach narratives through informal conversations as participants went about their business, which was more informative compared to a formal group interview (Brikci & Green, 2007). In this research, this was all carried out while participants were in school over the course of seven months. Narratives in the context of participants’ daily lives provide privileged access to what is important to people locally, and how they think about it (Brikci & Green, 2007). This is why I used a life-story semi-structured interview method for my data gathering tool (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990).

I did this partly, according to Eadie, MacAskill, Brooks, Heim, Forsyth and Punch’s (2010) strategy of first conducting an introductory meeting with the participants to share insights and to emphasize the condition for parental written consent (see Appendix E) and the participants’ written assent to participate (see Appendix F). All our meetings were conducted in a designated meeting room suitably allocated by each school headmaster from any interference and according to a timetable agreed with the headmasters for out-of-school time so that the interviews did not interfere with the participants’ school programmes. This was after I had politely asked the head to leave us on our own because his presence could have potentially

123

influenced the participants’ behaviour (Mantle, Moules, Johnson, Leslie, Parsons & Shaffer, 2007) through the possible generation of too much undesirable formality.

Initially, the participants chose to speak in English but I soon found out that they were not able to adequately express themselves in English on some issues. In the interest of progress, we then agreed to revert to Shona (for later translation) from the second session onwards. I recorded the interviews openly on my digital recorder after clarifying this data capture procedure to the participants.

As a participant researcher, I too was a data gathering instrument by virtue of my being sensitive and collecting all that I felt answered my research questions. My greatest consideration was for the spoken word for participant responses. Data collection involved first presenting open-ended questions to the participants, according to McAdams’ (1995) framework (see Appendix G). Initially, I planned to carry out the first interview and then only one follow-up interview per participant. A broad spill question, or the ‘the hook’ was used to start the conversation before opening the proper interview Edwards and Holland (2013). For the general, I asked the participants to tell me about their secondary school education and highlighting the issues they regarded to be very significant. This was followed by appropriate probes while maintaining an inductive stance throughout as I adopted McAdams’ (1995) framework (see Appendix G), as follows:

Every person’s life can be written as a book. I would like you to think about your educational life in secondary school now as if you were writing a book. First, think about the chapters of this book and, if you want to use a piece of paper, that is fine. Now, close your eyes and think. Remember now you are in Form 1, Form 2, Form 3 and finally in Form 4. What happened? You can break periods into chapters if you want.

When did the first stage (chapter) end? Then go on to the next chapters, and put down the age that each one begins and ends for you. Go on till you reach your present age now that you are in Form 4 in this school this year: March 2016.

You can use any number of chapters or stages that you find suitable to your own secondary school educational life. Now, can you give the first phase a title and in doing so think about the following questions for each chapter:

124

Tell me about a significant episode or a memory that you remember from this stage.

What kind of a person were you during this stage?

Who were significant people for you during this stage, and why?

And what is your reason for choosing to terminate this stage when you did? Can we now go on to Chapter Two? What happens in this chapter and who is with you and where and why? Do you want to go back there?

(Adopted from Wells 2011: 4)

Data analysis and comparisons were simultaneous, and this guided further development of interviews with either the same participant or prepared me for the next participant. Similarities were clustered/grouped into themes to enable me to experiment and see what emerged and how that narrative related to my research interest and how best I could approach the next participant. This directed my further data collection till saturation. After Phase 2 interviews, nothing new appeared interesting from two of the participants. They repeated what they had previously mentioned and recorded despite any determined efforts at varying my questioning and wording for these participants to see their situations differently.

An example is when I experimented with Lupton’s (1999: 455) suggestion of deconstructing the data in a process of looking for the underlying socio-cultural meanings of texts. I wanted the participants to explain their family situations within the expected cultural/gender roles for perspectives of gender sensitivity. As per many other attempts, these two participants did not indicate any awareness relevant to the progression of my study.

I proceeded with the remaining ten participants with narratives that provided more fertile areas for probing and identifying new issues. This is consistent with Burnard, Gill, Stewart, Treasure and Chadwick (2008), who posit that initial analysis of the data may also further inform subsequent data collection, and interview schedules may be slightly modified in light of emerging findings, when additional clarification may be required.

This flexibility and dynamic data collection ensured that my data collection remained relevant and maximized the potential of participant data for me to discover many dimensions of the phenomenon of at-riskiness from relevant participants before saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This left me with time for further data analysis, reflecting and preplanning my next

125

interviews according to the three phases of my research. These phases overlapped during the interviews. The three phases were:

Phase 1 (March–April)

 Initial informal interviews and commencement of data collection and downloading from recorded twelve participants till saturation.

 Familiarization and constant comparisons.

 Interview transcribing and contact summary.

 Developing basic/conceptual themes.

(Taylor & Gibbs, 2010)

Phase 2 (May–June)

 Extensive data collection and constant comparisons.

 In-depth case interviews with remaining ten identified participants of interest from Phase 1.

 Experimentation with data reduction and further thematizing/organizing themes.

Phase 3 (July–September)

 Further comparisons for global themes.

 Confirmation of themes.

 Reporting.