ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Qualitative studies involve direct interaction with people at their own natural turfs during fieldwork.

Research scholars observe that ethical dilemmas are likely to arise during data collection and the dissemination of findings (Creswell, 2009:89; Merriam, 2009:230). This view underscores the researcher-participant relationship which, according to Marshall and Rossman (2011:118), is often

132 dependent on the interpersonal attributes of the researcher, often understood in terms of how the researcher builds trust, maintains good relations, respects norms of reciprocity and thoughtfully considers ethical issues.

In anticipation of data collection, the researcher considered the need to respect the participants and the sites for this research. As Stake (2005:459) reminds us, “Qualitative researchers are guests in a private world. Their manners should be [as] good and their code of ethics *equally+ strict.” In the light of this counsel, the researcher adhered to ethical considerations such as informed consent, privacy, anonymity and confidentiality. The ensuing section outlines the application of these ethical principles in the study.

3.8.1 Informed consent

Voluntary and informed consent was obtained prior to the commencement of data collection from all respondents. Johnson and Christensen (2008:109) describe “informed consent” as an agreement to participate in a study after being informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, alternative procedures and limits of confidentiality. The participants were informed, to the extent possible, about the nature of the study in advance. This allowed them to choose whether or not to participate without any force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other forms of constraint or coercion (Chadwick et al., 1984:19). Informed consent in written form was obtained from the NWED Head of Department, Chief Directors of the sampled districts, identified AO managers, principals of the sampled schools, individual participants, and also from the institutions that provided accommodation for the interviews (cf. Appendix 2).

3.8.2 Privacy, anonymity and confidentiality

The researcher ensured the privacy of the participants by using three main practices: anonymity;

confidentiality, and appropriate storing of data (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010:121). Anonymity means that the researcher did not identify the participants with information that has been gathered.

Thus, anonymity in the process was guaranteed by means of utilising pseudonyms/ code names in the places of participants’ real names (Schulze, 2002:18).

The curriculum coordinators were denoted according to their title and sequence during data collection. For example, “Curriculum coordinator-1”, represented a curriculum coordinator in this study who was the first to be interviewed. A similar method was used to conceal the identity of the subject advisor. In their case, code names such as “Subject advisor 1-MAH” and “Subject advisor 2–

RUS” were used in the places of the actual names of the respondent subject advisors interviewed first and second, respectively from Mahikeng and Rustenburg AOs.

133 As far as protecting the identity of the principals, HoDs and teachers was concerned, the researcher assigned them pseudonyms according to the ranking of their respective schools in a particular AO, based on the Grade 12 percentage in 2010. The two top performing schools were referred to as T1 and T2, the two average performing schools were tagged A1 and A2, and the low performing schools were labelled as L1 and L2 respectively. As a decoder, the letter and number were used to identify the schools according to their performance in terms of their Grade 12 pass percentage in 2010 in a particular AO. That is, the letter ‘T’ stood for the top performing, ‘A’ represented the average performing and ‘L’ was used to for the low performing schools; and the digit was purposefully used to distinguish them according to numbers in a particular category, and not necessarily the schools’

actual positions in the AO in terms of the 2010 Grade 12 pass performance. As such, the principals were identified as “Principal T1–MOR” and “Principal L2–RUS”; HoDs as, “HoD A1-DIT” and “HoD T2-BOJ”; while code names such as “Teacher L1-MAH” and “Teacher A2-MOR” were used to denote teachers.

According to McMillan and Schumacher (2010:122) and Schulze (2002:18), confidentiality means that no one should have access to individual data or the names of the participants except the researcher, and that the participants knew before they participated as to who will see the data.

Confidentiality was ensured by making certain that collected data was not linked to individual respondents’ by name. This was accomplished through the strategies of collecting data anonymously and asking subjects to use aliases or code names (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010:122).

3.9 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Research literature suggests that qualitative researchers should narrow their studies; otherwise, they are likely to end up with data that are too unwieldy or often unrelated to the core of the research problem (Heck, 2011:206; Marshall & Rossman, 2011:99). These scholars further indicate that bounding the study often occurs in the process of determining the relevant aspects of the problem, choosing the setting, the geographic location, the participants, the type of evidence that should be collected and the priorities in doing the analysis. Guided by this consideration, the present study restricted its lens to the examination of the operational role of curriculum coordinators and SMTs (and not of other educational manager) in managing teachers’ CPD for curriculum change implementation. The present study’s sphere of interest and activity was on the secondary schools’

FET band (grades 10-12). Accordingly, this study focused on the management of teachers’ CPD for the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement, as the current curriculum change being implemented in the South African secondary schools.

134 This study’s setting was delimited to the purposively selected 24 secondary schools drawn from the four participating AOs of Mahikeng and Ditsobotla (in Ngaka Modiri Molema District) and Moretele and Rustenburg (in Bojanala District) in the North West Province. It is therefore understood that because the project was circumscribed and situated in a specific context, claims to generalisability of its findings would not be feasible. Nonetheless, its findings may be invaluable in research. Marshall and Rossman (2011:252) and Punch (2009:121) point out that case study results may be applicable in other cases and contexts with similar background. The researcher, therefore, believes that the findings of this study may be broadly transferable to other similar settings in other parts of South Africa or even elsewhere in situations with similar context.

3.10 SUMMARY

This chapter provided a detailed explanation of the research methodology. The study followed the qualitative line of inquiry to answer the central question. The reasons for the selection of qualitative research were highlighted. As well, the chapter provided justification for designing the study according to the principles of qualitative case study research. Purposive sampling, which undergirded the sampling procedure used in the study, was expounded. It also provided a concise explanation of the sources of data used, namely, the interview and document analysis. The former was considered as the main data collection technique, and document analysis played the supplementary and verification roles. In addition, the data analysis process was also illuminated.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of strategies that were implemented to reduce threats to trustworthiness and credibility. The closing section also embraces discussion of the ethical considerations applied to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the participants, sites, and integrity of the data. In the next chapter, the empirical findings are presented in detail.

135 CHAPTER 4