GROUNDED THEORY 105

According to Denzin and Lincoln (2000:511) “grounded theory” is a qualitative research approach which works from a constructivist perspective:

Theoretical categories must be developed from analysis of the collected data and must fit them; these categories must explain the data they subsume. Thus grounded theorists cannot shop their disciplinary stores for preconceived concepts and dress their data in them.

The above description of grounded theory means that research does not have to be grounded in some formal theory that is already in existence. Glaser and Strauss (1965:5) emphasise the role of qualitative research as a: “…strategy concerned with the discovery of substantive theory.”

Many researchers have adopted some tenets of grounded theory, like constant comparative method of data analysis:

…which is continually comparing one unit of data with another in order to derive conceptual elements of theory, even though they may not be developing a theory (Merriam, 2002:8).

This study on students’ experiences of integration borrows pertinent aspects of

3.6 STUDY POPULATION

To achieve the study objectives data were collected from two populations:

 Medical students in the MBBCh programme between March 2012 to June 2014, in each of the Year 1 to Year 6 groups, and

 Academic staff involved in teaching in all six years – planning and reviewing the curriculum, carrying out teaching and assessing learning.

Using these two populations allowed for an important triangulation necessary to gain a more complete and detailed understanding of the nature and effect of integrative learning in the programme.

As the number of medical students in each year varies from an average of 250 in Years 1 and 2 to 300 in Years 3 and 4, it would have been impossible and impractical to interview each one of them (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1981). For these reasons a reasonably representative sample was selected.

3.7 SAMPLING

In qualitative research sampling, the interest is not in “How much?” or “How often?”

but to understand the meaning of a phenomenon from the perspective of the participants (Merriam, 2002:12). Qualitative researchers typically engage in purposive rather than random sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1984:25). Random sampling is, therefore, not necessary and if samples are small may even result in a sample which is not representative of the whole. Instead it is preferable to choose those participants who have a lived experience of the phenomenon, from whom the most can be learned. Åkerlind (2008:243) cautions that phenomenographic analysis is time consuming, therefore:

...it is common to aim for the minimum sample that can be expected to show the range of variation that would be present in the population as a whole.

Qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on relatively small samples, selected purposively (Patton, 2002). In a study conducted by Marshall (1996) new themes stopped emerging after about 15 interviews and theoretical saturation was arrived at 24 interviews. Patton argues that it is important to select “information-rich” cases for study in depth because these cases:

…are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling (p.273).

Marshall (1996) says a purposeful sample is also known as a judgement sample.

This is an intellectual strategy that may require developing a framework of the variables depending on the researcher’s practical knowledge of the research area.

Theoretical sampling occurs when a new sample is selected to examine and elaborate on theories generated. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) explain that, as the researcher refines categories and develops them as theoretical constructs, gaps in data and holes in theories will be found. This necessitates going back to the field to collect delimited data to fill the conceptual gaps and holes. Such theoretical sampling is implicit in the iterative nature of qualitative research.

3.7.1 Sampling Techniques

Researchers in qualitative research use several sampling techniques which include:

1. Judgement / purposive sampling which is achieved through stratification using specific attributes.

2. Theoretical sampling occurs when a new sample is selected to examine and elaborate on theories generated.

3. Convenience sampling is used to reach the most accessible subjects.

In this study the principal sampling approach was “purposive”. As discussed in the previous paragraph, purposive sampling researchers handpick the cases to be included in the sample on the basis of the judgement of their typicality (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). The researcher obtained a list of all the students in the undergraduate programme from block coordinators. The list also contained the final year mark to enable stratification according to academic performance. To achieve representation when drawing the sample, certain characteristics were considered and these include year of study, graduate and school leaver entrants, gender, race, mother tongue and academic performance. Theoretical sampling was employed where needed to collect more data to fill information gaps that emerged from preceding rounds of data collection.

3.7.2 Sample of Students

The total population was made up of six cohorts of students in MBBCh 1 to 6.

Specifically, the sample was drawn from the following:

 Cohort 1: the 2014 class of MBBCh 1 students

 Cohort 2: the 2014 class of MBBCh 2 students

 Cohort 3: the 2013 class of MBBCh 3 students

 Cohort 4: the 2013 class of MBBCh 4 students

 Cohort 5: the 2013 class of MBBCh 5 students

 Cohort 6: the 2013 class of MBBCh 6 students

In this way not only the perceptions of each year group could be investigated but also how their perceptions and abilities concerning integration of learning develop from year to year.

The student population was stratified according to high achievers, middle achievers and low achiever students. Based on their most recent examination results, those who attained above 75 % were classified as high achievers, those between 60 % and 74 % were middle achievers, while those attaining 59 % and below were considered to be low achiever students. This last group included those students who were repeating a year or block. This stratification was applied to all the years of study – meaning that in each year attempts were made to interview at least one student in each of the strata. In addition to this stratification according to academic performance, efforts were made to include all the population groups and achieve gender balance. The researcher believed that one’s performance, gender and race may have a bearing on one’s perception of learning. In a study by Green-Thompson et al. (2012) it was evident that in a South African setting, issues of ethnicity could have an impact on students’ learning. Marton and Booth (1997) pointed out that constituent thematic fields or external horizons from which different ways of experiencing a phenomenon are born can present constraints in the way a learner brings a phenomenon to focal awareness.

An important point of note is that students’ results were used for stratification only.

There was no reference or link to the results thereafter. A profile of the student participants is provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Profile of the student participants Interviewee

Number Race Gender Year of

study Date of interview

1. White Male 4 24/04/2013

2. White Male 4 24/04/2013

3. Black Male 4 16/08/2013

4. Black Male 4 21/08/2013

5. Black Male 4 13/04/2012

6. Indian Male 6 28/02/2013

7. Mixed Female 4 09/04/2014

8. Mixed Female 4 09/04/2014

9. Mixed Female 5 29/04/2013

10. Mixed Female 5 29/04/2013

11. Mixed Female 5 29/04/2013

12. Black Female 2

(repeat)

07/10/2013

13. Black Female 2 09/04/2014

14. Black Female 2 09/05/2014

15. Indian Female 2 09/04/2014

16. White Male 2 09/04/2014

17. Black Female 3 14/05/2014

18. Black Female 1 15/05/2014

19. Black Female 1 15/05/2014

20. White Male 3 16/05/2014

21. Black Female 3 16/05/2014

22. Black Male 3 27/05/2014

23. White Male 1 28/05/2014

24. Black Female 1

(repeat)

19/05/2014

25. Black Male 5 18/06/2014

3.7.3 Sample of Teachers

“Teachers” in this study referred to all academic staff involved in the programme:

 Teachers of medical students in Years 1 to 6 of the programme between March 2012 and June 2014.

 Academic staff involved in developing / reviewing the six years of the reformed MBBCh programme.

Specifically, a representative sample of teachers was targeted by identifying the coordinator of each discipline taught per cohort of students. For example, in MBBCh I, the course coordinators of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Sociology, Psychology and those who teach the different components of the Medical Thought and Practice course were targeted. Those academic staff members who were involved in the review of the curriculum for each cohort were also interviewed. This population is small but the researcher initially reached those who were at the forefront of the review and then used “snowballing” to follow up any staff members who were recommended by this core group. According to Biernacki and Waldorf (1981) “snowball sampling” also referred to as “chain referral sampling” yields a study sample through referrals made among people who share or know of others who may possess knowledge or information that is of research interest.

3.7.4 Sample Size

Since this was a qualitative study, “saturation” determined the sample size.

“Saturation” occurs when no new categories are developed as analysis proceeds and all new data fit into the categories already derived (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). In this study, saturation was reached after around 18 student interviews.

The total sample size was 35 (25 students and 10 teachers).

Fifteen (15) students were interviewed in semi-structured in-depth interviews while data from 10 students were obtained through four focus group discussions. Data from the teachers were obtained through semi-structured in-depth interviews only.

According to Trigwell (2006) phenomenographic studies can be substantial undertakings with usually between 10 and 30 interviews of about 30 to 60 minutes

each. In this study the duration of the interviews and focus group discussions ranged from 35 to 90 minutes each.