Modelling workshops and participant observation
Conduct four generative workshops with ten local educators in one case study site (Albany Museum/South Africa)
Interactive discussions
Video filming of workshop processes (video clips to be subjected to critical discourses analysis)
Probe influence of inherent heritage
discourses of social transformation and inclusivity on how educators construct heritage
Explore how educators represent and use indigenous heritage constructs within the heritage outcome component of curriculum
Surface tensions and challenges educators face in trying to attain heritage construct inclusivity (use of both Eurocentric and
indigenous heritage constructs in current
heritage education practices)
Generating ideas for working better with
Phase three (3) In-depth probing, reflection and consolidation
In-depth interviewing of four key informants for each of the case study programmes
Purposive sampling to identify data rich informants
A total of 12 in-depth interviews conducted. (Initially nine interviews were planned but more data rich interviewees emerged)
In-depth follow up or probing of
emerging insights
Seeking in-depth understanding of inherent heritage discourses and how they could be determining current heritage construct representation and use
Generating additional data for cross
referencing, deepening and validating of
emerging insights relating to focus of study
Seeking to make more meaningful knowledge claims regarding research focus and questions
4.3.1 Contextual profiling
This process entailed undertaking preliminary document analysis, conducting focus group interviews and observations of heritage education practices in each of the three countries. The process of contextual profiling allowed for understanding of the field of heritage management and education within the context of post colonial southern Africa. In line with the hermeneutic orientation of this study, contextual profiling therefore allowed for an understanding of the “whole” within which heritage education practices (the “part”) are to be iteratively interpreted and explained (Gadamer, 1976; Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Benton & Craib, 2001).
In South Africa, a total of five focus group interviews, involving members of the Provincial Heritage Resources Authorities (PHRAs) were conducted. The provinces that participated were Western Cape, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Free State, and Gauteng. In addition I also conducted focus group interviews with four heads of units based at South African Heritage Resources Agency, head office in Cape Town. In Zimbabwe and Botswana I only managed to do one focus group interview at each of the case study sites.
According to Patton (1990) and Schurink (1998), a focus group interview is described as a purposive discussion of a specific topic or related topics taking place between eight and ten individuals with a similar background and common interest. Patton (1990: 35) described focus group interviews as a highly efficient qualitative data collection technique, providing quality control on data as participants tend to provide checks and balances in relation to each other. The advantage of a focus group interview is therefore that it is low cost and generates rich data as it goes beyond answers from just a single interviewee (Welman & Kruger, 2002; Berg, 2004;
Gillham, 2005). The focus group interviews helped me to gain insights into the current status of heritage management and education in South Africa. Focus group interviews further enabled me to have a sense of the discourses influencing heritage management and education practices in the region (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000; Berg, 2004). Interviews with heads of units at South African Heritage Resources Agency provided valuable information regarding the status of heritage management and education in South Africa, including the challenges of working within the country’s changing socio-political context.
In addition to the focus group interviews I also observed heritage education practices at the Great Zimbabwe monument, Supa Ngwao Museum and Albany Museum. In Zimbabwe, after realising the link between the education programme at Great Zimbabwe and heritage education in formal schools, especially the culture hut concept (Nyoni & Nyoni, 2010), I went on to visit two primary schools. During these visits I observed learning processes tied to the culture hut concept at Ruvimbo, and Dambudzo primary schools in Kwekwe district, Zimbabwe.
In South Africa, because of its proximity to Rhodes University where I was based, I managed to observe heritage education practices at Albany Museum more often than the other two sites. Participant observation enabled me to gain more information on how heritage education is implemented within the case study sites. Gillham (2005) argued that participant observation is a primary data collection technique for the case study method. He claimed that “observation is the most direct way of obtaining data” (Gillham, 2005: 46). Both Scholz and Tietje (2002) and Gillham (2005) also pointed out that observation can be used in case study research at the exploratory or initial phase, after which other methods will take over. In this study I used it for exploratory purposes in the initial phase of the study. It allowed me to gain more information regarding heritage management and education practices in the region. In practice participant observation entailed that: I “watch what the participants do”, I “listen to what they say” and I “ask clarifying questions” where I was not sure (Gillham, 2005: 45). Maykut and Morehouse (1994) pointed out that participant observation requires the researcher to keenly listen, observe and ask questions about what is happening and why, so as to understand the situation in full within context.
Data from the focus group interviews was captured in the form of notes. Data from field observations was captured in the form of video clips and photographs which were later edited and made ready for analysis (see Table 5). Documents collected were analysed and important sections processed into analytical memos, later subjected to different levels of critical discourse analysis or quoted directly within the thesis (see Table 5 in Sections 4.4 and 4.5 for more information on data management and processing). According to Patton (1990 & 2002) document analysis provides useful initial insights into the phenomenon studied. Emphasising the value of documents analysis, Patton (2002:112) argued that “it is also possible to conduct qualitative research using only documents”. Documents collected particularly relate to policies and strategies guiding heritage management and education practices in the region. According to Gillham (2005), the weight attached to a document depends on its relevance to questions that a study seeks to answer. Table 3 below provides more information on the documents collected and the rationale thereof.
Table 3: Summary of main documents reviewed and rationale (see Table 5 for how data from these were processed and indexed)
Identity/name of document Reason (s) for collection of Document SOUTH AFRICA CASE STUDY
The CenTRE concept document (2010) Provides information on SAHRA’s new education, research and training project within which this study is situated
SAHRA Information Brochure (undated) Traces changes in heritage discourses Living Heritage Chapter: Policy and
Guidelines Principles for Management (2008)
Make explicit discourses pertaining to management and promotion of intangible heritages which apparently are closely related to indigenous heritage constructs The White Paper on Arts and Culture (1996) Sets the tone for discourses shaping changes in heritage
conception and management in post apartheid South Africa
Year Book of South Africa (2010) Provides information on the diversity of heritage resources in the country and the management thereof
National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 Offers insights into post apartheid policy discourses National Monument Council Act 28 of 1969 Gives insights into how heritage was constructed and
managed during the apartheid era Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement (2010): Social Sciences Intermediate phase
Provides information regarding heritage education in formal schools
State of the Nation Address (2012) Illustrates the way in which nation state constructs heritage to suit political imperatives of the day
Albany Museum Education Department
Programme booklet (2011) Helped me to gain more information about the education programme at Albany Museum “Clash of commerce and Culture”; “Muni
considers legal action against Heritage Resources”; “Mainstreaming heritage”; “The meaning of heritage”.
Illustrates some of the challenges of managing heritage in post apartheid South Africa as well as the different perspectives to defining heritage