RATIONALE FOR THE CHOICE OF INSTRUMENTS

This section explains the rationale for the choice of the instruments used in the collection of data for this study. Basically, the choice of the instruments is based on the theory of triangulation and the mixed method design. In line with the theory of curriculum deliberation, dependency on one method would not have helped much to yield the desired results and especially fulfilling the adopted theory, which proposes interaction among stakeholders to achieve a common goal.

Triangulation is as old as the 1970s when Denzin developed a systematic approach of triangulation for social research (Flick 2014). The use of multiple methods in the collection of data for the same purpose is called methodological triangulation. According to Flick (2014:183), “Triangulation refers to the combination of different methods, study groups, local and temporal settings, and different theoretical perspectives in dealing with a phenomenon”, with implications which include the formalising of the relation between qualitative and quantitative research, the strengthening of the quality of qualitative research and designing and conducting qualitative research in an appropriate way.

Lodico et al. (2006:285) explain that the use of more than one method for the same purpose is called:

a triangulation design because the data from the quantitative and qualitative methods are compared (or triangulated) to see if they produce similar findings. Thus, the design provides both a more complete picture of the topic studied and enhanced credibility because of the use of multiple methods.

Keeves (1997) defined triangulation as “the application and combination of several research methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon”.

According to Tavakoli (2012: 364), deciding on how to mix methods, “depends on the purpose of the study, its design, and the strategies used for data collection and analysis”. Several scholars accept and explain the use of more than one method (triangulation) in one study (Denzin & Lincoln 2008; Keeves 1997; Johnson & Christensen 2012; Lodico, et al. 2006). Denzin (2012: 3) says “the use of multiple methods or triangulation reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question.” Denzin (2012:3) citing Flick (2002) further explains that “the combination of multiple methodological practices, empirical materials, perspectives, and observers in a single study is best understood, then, as a strategy that adds rigour, breadth, complexity, richness, and depth to any inquiry”. As explained by different researchers, triangulation is a very important tool in research. It adds depth and breadth of data to be collected and the practice was adopted in this study.

This study collected data using questionnaires, interviews and teacher observations. This was out of an understanding that no single method can collect all the data required in a study and the use of triangulation overcomes this lapse. Keeves (1997) is of the opinion that the use of multiple methods or measures is so as to overcome the weaknesses or biases in a single method. Johnson and Christensen (2012:269) say the objective in triangulation is to intermix or combine different methods that have non-overlapping weaknesses or strengths. Tavakoli (2012:364) highlights two of the very important arguments for mixing methods as “increasing the strengths while eliminating the weaknesses and the advantage of multi-level analysis of complex issues”. The main attraction of mixed methods research is that both qualitative and quantitative approaches bring out the best of both paradigms (Tavakoli 2012). This is further augmented by the potential that the strengths of one method can be utilised to overcome the weaknesses of another method used in the study. Further, Tavakoli (2012:364) argues that “the use mixed-methods approach helps researchers to gain understanding of a complex phenomenon by converging numeric trends from quantitative data and specific details from qualitative data. Words can be used to add meaning to numbers and numbers can be used to add precision to words”. This elaboration is in line with the paradigms selected for this study. The use of mixed methods is in agreement with the paradigms that argue that truth cannot be understood from one perspective. For instance, as Tavakoli has observed, percentages and numbers in themselves do not give enough insight into the results of a study. However, when the percentages and numbers are reinforced with verbatim records, a feature this study

embraced, a study portrays a real-life situation in the community. A combined set of perspectives as this study has adopted (mixed methods) helps to cover the weaknesses one method may have over the other and strengthen the validity and reliability of the study results. Triangulation in this study worked very effectively in that data from questionnaires was reinforced with data from interviews and observations. Gaps in data collected through instrument were covered by another instrument. This enhanced the validity and reliability of data.

Literature shows a number of triangulation techniques namely time triangulation, space triangulation, combined levels triangulation, theoretical triangulation, investigator and methodological triangulation (Cohen etal 2005). Time triangulation is applicable in cross sectional studies to see the effect of social change on studied problem. For example, in studies to do with child development, the change in behaviour caused by the effects of social change can be well understood by use of time triangulation. For example, the change in child thinking can be ascertained when time triangulation is employed. When space triangulation is employed, the researcher is attempting to overcome controversy or limitations usually that emanates from cultural studies or as (Cohen etal 2005) studies conducted within one culture or subculture. To Cohen etal (2005: 113), “cross cultural studies may involve testing of theories among different people….” This study was not meant to compare people’s cultures or beliefs. The other type of triangulation involves different investigators or observers investigating the same problem but using different techniques.

This study adopted the methodological triangulation in which survey questionnaires, interviews and observations were used to collect data. Denzin (2012:3) says “the use of multiple methods, or triangulation, reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question. Objective reality can never be captured. We only know a thing through its representations.” Data for this study was collected concurrently with the different methods hence concurrent triangulation was used. This is in line with adopted concurrent convergent mixed methods design adopted for the study. According to Ary etal (2010: 563) “concurrent triangulation occurs when quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed separately but at the same time, with the findings converging in the conclusions in order to answer an overarching research question.” The choice of triangulating methods rather than time, space, or investigator lied in the researcher’s belief that triangulating methods provides higher confidence in the results. Cohen (2005) attests to this belief that “the more the methods contrast with each other, the greater the researcher’s confidence.”

Fraenkel and Wallen (2003:463) and Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, (2012), when advising researchers on the procedures for checking or enhancing validity and reliability says, “when a conclusion is supported by data from a number of different instruments, its validity is thereby enhanced”. Researchers need to do that which provides confidence and conclusions in the results. If the aim of research is to solve a problem, stakeholders should be able to trust the results and direct their energy solving the problem instead of creating controversy that brings further studies. In other words, research must be pragmatic in a sense. In this study the use of questionnaires, interviews and observation checklists provided similar results. Results cannot occur by chance when different instruments are used. If quantitative data gives a picture that qualitative data is speaking to, there should be a higher degree to believe the results of such a study. When different methods produce contrasting results, there is all reason to question the reliability of the instruments used to collect data.

According to Cohen etal (2005), out of the six categories of triangulation depicting Denzin’s 1970 typology, four are frequently used in education. These are time, space, investigator and methodological triangulations but further saying of the four types, methodological triangulation is the most frequently used. Jupp (2006:306) noted four types of triangulations namely data, investigator, theory and methodological triangulation but said “most often triangulation is seen as methodological triangulation either within method or between methods”. The choice of methodological triangulation in this study is however not influenced by the populist perspective. From the general level, methodological triangulation provides depth. The research design adopted for this study finds methodological triangulation more suitable. The convergent mixed methods design ensures that data is collected by different methods and results contrasted and compared to determine the differences and similarities that help with conclusions. The nature of the problem under study did not require to be studied at different times (i.e. time triangulation for instance) because the problems of curriculum implementation is an urgent matter that requires attention so that one group of learners do not remain disadvantaged. Further, the nature of the problem under study is not a cultural issue, it’s an academic and policy issue that cuts across personal belief systems. To adopt space triangulation would be adopting a reductionist approach of de-rationalising curriculum issues. The demand that this study was a PhD study leading to a qualification could perhaps be the main reason for not adopting the investigator triangulation. However, the practicality of adopting this kind of triangulation is usually questioned because researchers may have different areas of research interests and constraints.