Generating data

Marshall and Rossman (2006) argue that qualitative research relies on four methods for gathering information. According to them the four methods are participating in the setting, observing directly, interviewing in depth and analysing documents and material culture. They also posit that these form the core of the inquiry. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) agree with the former when they argue that qualitative research uses multiple methods. In so doing, they reflect an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. The current research used all the aforementioned methods and they will be discussed in depth.

Using more than one method for data gathering is called triangulation (Kennedy, 2009). Kennedy further notes that triangulation is about deepening and widening one’s

understanding. This resonates with qualitative research which emphasises vigour and rich data. In the current study multiple methods were used. These were drawings, focus group and individual interviews, as well as observation. These will be discussed below.

3.5.2.1 Draw and Tell

The draw and tell technique is regarded as a creative research method that is widely used in research with children where a range of social and health-related subjects are explored (Angell, Alexander & Hunt, 2015). They further posit that the technique is used for its

simplicity and easy availability of resources. As the study was done with children, it is always cautioned that children should feel comfortable and free. From that notion, Angell, et al. (2015) support the statement when they say that drawings provide children with a choice for imparting information in ways that might be familiar to them thus establishing rapport. As noted earlier, when researchers plead that children should be involved or allowed to

participate in matters that concern them, this technique assists in the call to allow participants to talk about their drawings. It also prevents the researcher from interpreting drawings on her own without the children’s comments. Ellis (2006) suggests that drawings provide a natural and coherent way which allows the researcher an opportunity of expressing sincere interest in the child’s response. In this case the participants were given an opportunity to interpret their own drawings during the interviews. It is further noticed that the value of the interview relationship will depend on the child’s perception of the researcher’s unpretentious interest in him or her.

Sewell (2011), reaffirmed the value of drawings in his study on bullying. He concluded that this technique is used to capture participant voice in educational settings and to elicit bullying. However, the choice to use the technique was not specifically to elicit bullying but bullying emerged as a theme from the data.

Having discussed the draw and tell technique, the technique seemed appropriate for the study. The participants had to first draw a picture which depicts them doing something fun at school or something that interest them. The second picture was about something that they did not like. After the drawings were done each participant was interviewed about each picture and the interviews were recorded.

The drawings allowed the participants to talk about their perceptions of the school.

According to Hinds (2000) non-verbal cues are also important to observe during interviews. As the participants were chosen according to their years spent at the school, the interviews allowed them to reflect on their experiences and in turn the process encouraged interaction with the researcher (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006).

Interviews are a better way of getting the participants’ experiences because they help the researcher to get information on the experiences that cannot be observed like thoughts, feelings and intentions (Patton, 2002).

Denzin and Lincoln (2013) argue that both quantitative and qualitative researchers are interested in the participants’ point of view. According to them there is a difference between the two approaches to researchers. The qualitative researcher thinks that he or she can get close to the participant’s perspective by detailed interviewing and observation. And the quantitative researcher does not interact closely with the participant but is interested in comparing the numbers of different responses. This study was interested in the former that is interacting with the participants by interviewing them. Denscombe (2007) focuses on the use of open-ended questions, allowing interviewees to use their own words and develop their own thought. It was interesting to watch participants engage in the interviews and voicing their concerns and what they thought could be solutions to some of their concerns. Therefore I agree with Denscombe’s (2007) statement. Patton (2002) suggests that the purpose of interviewing is to find out what is on someone else’s mind. Similarly, Terre Blanche, et al. (2006) posit that interviews give the researcher an opportunity to get to know the people quite intimately, so that we can really understand how they feel and think.

What I think is also important is that interviewing is a natural form of interacting with people than making them complete questionnaires (Terre Blanche, et al., 2006). Terre Blanche, et al. (2006) and Barbour (2007) argue that using individual interviews allows the researcher to obtain in-depth information from participants.

3.5.2.2 Focus Group Interview

In qualitative research, focus groups are perceived as a method that saves costs and time (Liamputtong, 2011). Braun and Clarke (2013) echo the same idea by stating that data are

collected from many participants at the same time. Kitzinger (1995) further indicates that a focus group is a form of a group interview that capitalises on communication between the research participants in order to generate data. Kitzinger further notes that the researcher does not ask one person to respond but people are encouraged to talk to one another. This is done while the researcher takes a less active role in directing the talk (Barbour, 2008). This is how it was done in this study and it was interesting to see how the participants disagreed on some points.

According to the department of health and human services evaluation brief ( 2013) a focus group is a group interview of approximtely six to twelve peolple who share similar

characteristics or common interests. In this study focus groups were constituted as either girls or boys who were 11-13 years old and who attended the same school and were done after the draw and tell activity.

3.5.2.3 Classroom Observations

According to Kumar (2011) observation is a purposeful, orderly and careful way of observing and listening to an occurrence as it happens. Similarly, in this study the purpose of observing lessons was to find out if learners are given opportunities to engage or participate in a lesson and other activities that concern their learning at the school. Kumar (2011) further asserts that there are two types of observations, participant and non-participant observation. The

researcher chose the non-participant observation for she did not participate in the activities of the lessons but remained an observer. However, Kumar cautions that the researcher should note that when individuals or a group becomes aware that they are being observed, they may change their behaviour and depending upon the situation, this change could be positive or negative.

Corbin and Strauss (2008) assert that observation is the fundamental and highly important method in all qualitative inquiry. Observation entails the systemic noting and recording of events, behaviours, and artefacts in the social setting chosen for the study (Marshall &

Rossman, 2006). Classroom studies are one example of observation, often found in education, in which the researcher documents and describes actions and interactions that are complex. They further posit that observation is used in in-depth interviews, where the researcher notes the interviewee’s body language and effect in addition to her words. In this study, the

participants were observed during a lesson in the classroom. The researcher explored if the participants are given an opportunity to participate during a lesson or not.

Recording of the observations was done by using narrative and descriptive notes common in qualitative research (Kumar, 2011).

3.6 DATA MANAGEMENT