In-depth interviews: Multiple Case Study

In this phase, five cases were studied in three towns (East London, Bhisho and King Williams Town) that form part of the BCMM, that is, 1 farm school in King Williams Town, 1 township school in East London, 1 suburban school in King Williams Town, 1 rural school in Bhisho and 1 informal settlement school in East London. Data was collected by means of comprehensive on-site interviews, employing a semi- structured interview protocol that was developed from the literature for this purpose (Costello & Zumla, 2000; Henry, Dunbar, Arnott, Scrimgeour, Mattheus, Murakami- Gold and Chamberlain, 2002 & Henry, 2004). The interviews elicited open-ended responses as the comprehensive individual interviews were conducted as a stand- alone method to explore and probe deeper into the participants’ perceptions and attitudes about research and research collaboration. The following people were interviewed in each of the sampled schools: one principal, one LO teacher or a teacher who is the member of the Disciplinary Committee and two learners, a boy and a girl. To ensure validity, the questionnaire, the rationale, the completion rules, and issues of anonymity were explained. The interviews were conducted both in English and Xhosa; further clarity was given in Xhosa or English whenever it was necessary. The interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ permission but not all participants were keen to be recorded and the tape seemed to be a form of distraction to the learners as they kept on looking at it and were very uneasy. To manage the situation the interviewer asked the learners if they were comfortable with being recorded and six of the learners requested that it be switched off. Notes where the interview responses were classified and coded according to opinions, suggestions etc., were taken in preparation for transcribing. Each interview took approximately 30 minutes and the whole procedure, took 2 to 3 hours on average per school.

162 When conducting the interviews an issue of validity was given serious consideration and data was transcribed as soon as it was collected and this enabled the researcher to complete contact summary sheets and to do follow up interviews where it was deemed necessary (Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Silverman, 2001). After the first case study interview (township) the researcher noted that there are aspects that needed further clarity and the researcher returned to the school to seek the answers and that experience helped the researcher to take note of those aspects when conducting interviews in other schools.

In terms of validity the researcher would check if the findings can be substantiated by evidence that doesn’t waiver (Niemann et al, 2002:283). The validity of qualitative research has always been questioned (Denzil & Lincoln, 2000) and Miles and Huberman (1994) note that traditional notions of validity emphasize external validity, which is the generalizability of the findings in other contexts. Looking at the qualitative side, generalization from sample to population is not a major purpose in qualitative research (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Kvale (1996) explains that the validity of qualitative research depends on the researcher’s ability to act as her own ‘research tool’, namely her ability to reflect critically and reflexively on the process, including the possible influences she might bring to bear to the study by virtue of her values and prior assumptions, throughout the conduct of the study. Likewise, Miles and Huberman (1994) recognize the importance of using different sources and testing the evidence of each source. Emerging findings were discussed with the supervisor to getalternative opinions (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

The researcher noted that there could be weaknesses that can affect the data, from both the side of the researcher and the participants, e.g. tiredness.The researcher informed the participants that probing questions were going to be asked and the participants were encouraged to ask if there was a need for further clarity so the researcher asked the participants to be patient. The researcher also noted to the participants that as stipulated in the permission letters she would avoid disturbing the school programme but if it was acceptable to the school, she would love to come to the school two hours earlier than the set time. Three principals welcomed this and noted that the researcher could come as early as the starting time so that she can have time to make some observations and be familiar with the environment. It was

163 also noted that the researcher would be given an opportunity to conduct the interview whenever one of the sampled participants was free and this enabled the researcher to interview most of the participants in the morning and in most instances the researcher would have finished the interviews at mid-day and the chances of exhaustion were minimized and afternoons were dedicated to transcribing. Only two schools wanted their participants to be interviewed in the afternoon and that did not have a negative impact on the responses as the participants looked fascinated by the discussions. Other teacher participants felt uneasy when the objective of the research was mentioned as they thought it was aimed at policing whether schools were still using corporal punishment.One participant even said in the beginning of the interview, “I am using what I know for a fact that you don’t approve of, I use corporal punishment”, and when such fears were raised the researcher would duly remind the participants about the purpose of the study. One participant also felt uneasy about the anonymity of her responses when she was interacting in face-to- face interviews and to alleviate such fears, the researcher explained the research ethics with relation to guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality and also how the coding system works. The researcher also noted that the participants could under- report on disciplinary practices, because they want to sound professional and be seen as law abiding citizens and to avoid these problems the participants were made aware of the importance of providing accurate information. The researcher did her best to be organised and adhered to all research ethics; nevertheless the following things were observed:

In one school (informal settlement) the learners chosen seemed not to be meeting the criteria (learners with behavioural problems) for they noted that they had never done any offence and were very defensive. The learners kept on raising the fact that corporal punishment was not used in their school even when the questions were not related to the use of corporal punishment. The researcher continuously reminded the learners about the purpose of the interview and also emphasised the issue around the de-stigmatization of the concepts like “offence “or “bad behaviour” and with further probing, learners became relaxed and were ultimately able to answer questions asked and stopped giving defensive answers. The answers given after they became relaxed contradicted the answers they had given at the initial stages of

164 the interviews. The learners’ behaviour reflected that there could be a possibility that learners were coached on the answers to give to the interviewer.

In one case (rural), the principal promised to choose the learners for me but when I came the principal brought five learners and told me there were two “special cases” that he wanted me to interview but he didn’t want the learners to know they were chosen for a specific reason. The principal noted the learners were once involved in corporal punishment cases that ended up being taken to the police. The principal called five learners and introduced the researcher and noted that all of them were going to be interviewed but the researcher was going to start with the two learners that the principal chose. The three then left with the promise that they were to be called later and the researcher remained with the two that were interviewed at different times. The first learner had something that looked like a severe case of eczema and when I asked him to share with me about an offence that he had once committed he told me about an incident where he was beaten by a teacher having done nothing at all. He reported that the teacher beat him on the wound that was on his hand and narrated the story up to the time they ended up going to the police, where the teacher asked for forgiveness. I do not understand why the principal chose that specific child and I assume that it could be linked to his utterances in the interview that I earlier had with him where he noted that, “Parents need to be advised that it’s not always advisable to rush to the police and not come to the school first as there are due processes to be followed and the case can end up taking a very long route.” In his responses the principal noted that corporal punishment was not used in that school; however, a participating LO teacher noted that corporal punishment was used occasionally (“they steal it”) but both learners interviewed reported that corporal punishment was used every day.