Collection of data in a qualitative case study is quite extensive, drawing on multiple sources of information. Some types of information are documents, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observations and physical artifacts (Creswell, 2007: 75). The data collection process begun with obtaining permission form the ministry of education. Thereafter the researcher entered the research sites. Interviews were conducted with curriculum specialists, university students with visual impairments and teacher trainers. As for learners with visual impairments, focused group discussions were conducted in the school. Teachers were given questionnaires which they had to fill in.
The primary data gathering instruments for this study were interviews, focus group discussions and questionnaires. To supplement these techniques, documents were read to get an insight into the policy framework governing the education of learners with visual impairments, particularly in ECC. The techniques used in this study are discussed below.
4.3.1 Interviews
Cannell and Kahn (1968) cited in Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007: 351) define research interviews as “a two-person conversation initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research-relevant information based on the objectives of a particular study”. Further, Punch (1998: 175), states that an interview is an approach of asking questions and receiving answers. An interview offers an opportunity for detailed investigation of each person’s personal perspective. When used in qualitative approach, it is a powerful way of understanding other people’s perceptions, meanings, definitions and construction of reality which gives a rich context of meaning. There are various forms of interview protocols that can be developed to obtain thick, rich data. The types could be an informal conversational interview, which is said to be spontaneous in nature in that the questions are generated during an interaction with the participant. The researcher does not have specific questions to ask. It is rather the interaction and experiences of the
participant at a particular moment of the research process which determine the interview (Turner, 2010: 7-8).
An interview can be in the form called general interview guide approach. The general interview guide approach is also called a semi-structured interview characterised by a predetermined set of questions or issues for all interviewees. It is a “conversation with a purpose” (Mason, 2002, cited in Hemming, 2008: 153; Willig, 2008: 23). In this interview design, the set questions are used to ensure that the relevant issues on the topic are covered. The interviewer is at liberty to ask questions outside the set ones especially in order to get clarification and explanations on the raised issues (Punch, 1998: 175). Another design of an interview is standardised, open-ended interview. The standardised, open-ended interview format which scholars such as Yin (2011: 133) call the structured interview, requires that researchers should start the interview with a set of carefully-worded and arranged questions to ask participants in the same sequence. This format is not flexible enough to allow for much probing.
This study used a semi-structured interview guides to collect data from ten students with visual impairments, three teacher trainers and two curriculum specialists (Appendices A2, A3 and A4). The researcher opened communication lines with the participants to plan on when and where the interviews were to be conducted. Interviews were found suitable because they gave participants an opportunity to give detailed accounts of what they knew about ECC. This technique also enabled the researcher to probe or seek further clarification on issues outside the set questions thereby gathering rich and thick data. With a semi-structured interview guide, the researcher was able to capture non-verbal responses as well. Interviews also provided the researcher with an opportunity to appreciate how embedded ECC was in the overall context of persons with visual impairments.
4.3.2 Focus Group Discussion
A focus group discussion is a carefully-planned discussion in a group designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment. In a focus group discussion (FGD), participants hear from each other. As the discussion progresses, participants have an opportunity to refine and sharpen
what they have to say and move to a deeper and more desired level of interaction (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003: 171). The interaction of participants is useful in the generation of solutions or strategies to an issue because there is team work with less influence from the researcher. The FGD has been found to be good at providing a social context within which the phenomenon is taking place (Cohen, et al., 2007: 376). By responding to each other, participants reveal more of their own thoughts and experiences on the subject of study. In other words, FGDs shape people’s views or reflections on social constructions as well as individual self-identity shared meanings (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003: 171).
Furthermore, Ritchie and Lewis (2003: 172) identified some forms that FGDs may take. They talk about the typical FGD which involves between six to eight participants who meet only once for a period of one or two hours. The second FGD form is where the constituted group reconvenes within one or two weeks after the first meeting mainly to report their experiences after an intervention or carrying out an assignment. An FGD may take the form of a workshop where a larger group meets for a longer session with a structured programme of activities. Small groups can be created with specific tasks assigned and later report to the larger group. Finally, FGDs may be presented as a consultative process. Morgan(1988) in Cohen et.al (2007:376) state that consultative panels can be conducted by drawing people together in a series of sessions to deliberate and this contributes to decision making. The form or type of FGD used depends on the nature of the study and the data the researcher would like to be generated. This study used the typical type of FGD where participants met once for about one hour. This type was found to be more viable because there was no justification to have follow-up discussions because there were no interventions put in place to warrant follow-ups. FGDs were relevant because they enabled the learners to listen to one another. They were able to agree and disagree on issues, thereby giving the study the complex and more accurate scenario on the ground. The technique was used to collect information from 28 in three focus group discussions in the special schools. The focus group discussion guide is found in Appendix A1.
4.3.3 Questionnaire
There are several types of questionnaires from which a researcher can select. One principle with regard to questionnaire choice is that a large study sample attracts a closed, numerical and highly structured questionnaire while a small sample size may use an open and less structured type with a lot of opportunity for explanations (Cohen, et al., 2007: 320-321). A structured questionnaire contains a variety or ranges of possible answers which are processed in a rapid manner statistically. In a structured questionnaire, the nature of the data and its categories are known beforehand. Such an approach is quantitative in nature.
On the other hand, Cohen, et al. (2007: 321) state that a semi-structured questionnaire has a series of questions, statements or items presented which the respondents are asked to answer, respond to or comment on. In this type of questionnaire, the structure, sequence and focus is available but the format is open- ended enabling respondents to reply in their own words. Bailey (1994: 120) equally asserts that open-ended questions are useful if the possible answers are unknown or the questionnaire is exploratory or if there are many possible categories of responses. Semi-structured questionnaires with open-ended questions are advantageous because they enable respondents to write accounts and give explanations in their own words as much as they would like to and, yield in-depth responses when investigating complex issues to which simple answers cannot be provided.
The questionnaire used in this study was semi-structured with open ended questions (Appendix A5). The questionnaire was used to collect information from twenty-one teachers of learners with visual impairments in special schools. This was good for the study because it gave the respondents a chance to write detailed accounts of the complex issues in ECC. The teachers were able to express themselves and provide as much information as they could.