Research Methodologies and Instrument Development

The study was an interpretive inquiry with case research as its primary approach. The case study approach is an empirical inquiry wherein an in-depth investigation is conducted on a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (Bhattacherjee 2012; Yin 2009). While the case study approach is recognised for its value of providing contextual depth, there are concerns regarding its validity, reliability and generalisability or what Kelliher (2005, p.1) refers to as research legitimisation. Cognisant of this, I took purposive steps to address these concerns.

To improve the research’s ability to generalise, multiple case studies were undertaken. According to Bhattacherjee (2012, p.95), ‘multiple case design is

appropriate for establishing generalizability of inferences and for developing richer and more nuanced interpretations of a phenomenon.' To improve the external

validity of the research, the study sites were selected within the same geographical region (i.e. urban schools and rural schools within the same region). Research participants were asked to review the transcriptions and draft case study reports for completeness and accuracy as another measure to improve research validity. A

chain of evidence was maintained to increase the reliability of the information in the case study (Yin 2009).

Data from the multiple case studies were collected through semi-structured key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and documents analysis. Employing several data gathering techniques allowed for data triangulation (Bhattacherjee 2012) which improved the reliability of the research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with SGC members and with key personnel from the Central, Regional and Divisional officials of DepEd, while focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with various stakeholders at the School, Division and Regional levels with the view of enriching data collected from key informant semi-structured interviews.

During instrument development, the following were undertaken to facilitate the construction of the data gathering guides:

 Identification of questions per area of inquiry that ensured that research questions were aligned to the research’s areas of inquiry;

 Matching research questions against research respondents that determined primary and secondary sources of information; and

 Development of a coding structure.

Based on these, the interview and FGD guides were prepared and designed for each individual or group of respondents to provide structure to the data gathering process and ensure the collection of critical information. Codes were incorporated in the guides to facilitate data collation and analysis and ensure the research’s chain of evidence. Interview and FGD guides were translated to Filipino, the universally spoken language across the country.

Pilot-testing was incorporated as a critical activity in the study’s preparatory phase to provide an opportunity to test the research design and procedures in actual conditions in the Philippines. Specifically, this was conducted to: [1] determine the appropriateness of the research methodology and instruments; [2] identify gaps and areas for improvement in the research design; [3] determine potential administrative and logistical issues and identify resource requirements in the conduct of the main study.

The pilot testing resulted in several changes in the research design and procedures. One of the major changes was on the research framework. It was expanded to reflect how interpretation of Department policies and directives by other levels of the structure impact on the way SGCs understood and operated as a council.

The pilot study also confirmed the effectiveness of a qualitative approach in providing contextual depth to the study. Interviews and focus group discussions were effective in allowing the researcher to probe respondents’ perceptions and understanding about the research topic. During the actual conduct of the data gathering, these methodologies accorded the researcher the facility to switch from a structured to a less structured approach that reflected the direction of the interview or the focus groups discussion. In particular, the focus groups allowed for a candid and honest discussion of the research questions and also as a way of observing interaction between respondents.

The pilot study identified gaps in the data collected. A significant data gap was demographic information (e.g. population, migration, socio-economic and cultural activities, etc.) about the locality where the school is located. As a result, questions to determine the socio-economic situation of the community were incorporated in the interview guide for barangay officials and a copy of the community’s socio- economic profile was requested.

Another data gap was the changes in pattern of stakeholder involvement in school management over time. This was largely attributed to the type of respondents who participated during the pilot as most were involved in the school after the enactment of RA9155. To address this, teacher respondents with varying lengths of service in the Department, as well as present and past parents, were invited to participate in the research. By doing this, the study benefitted from the breadth of knowledge and experience of the respondents. A corollary concern was the ambiguity of some of the terms used (e.g. school based management, decentralisation, etc.) and the similarity of responses generated from different questions by the respondents. To address these concerns, the questions were either revisited, rephrased or removed entirely from the list of questions. In some cases, alternate questions were prepared and added to the instruments (see Appendix 1

for Sample of Data Gathering Instrument).

The pilot study identified some procedural and logistical concerns including the respondents’ availability for the data gathering sessions, the availability of pertinent documents that may substantiate claims made by the respondents, and the choice of an appropriate venue to conduct the interviews and FDG sessions. A formal communication was sent to all study sites outlining the following measures to address the above concerns:

 Sites were given the latitude to schedule the interviews and FGDs taking into consideration the respondents’ availabilities within the period of data gathering for the site;

 A list of respondents was provided to allow the schools to coordinate with them regarding their willingness to participate and availability during the conduct of the research; and

 A detailed discussion of the areas of inquiry and relevant documents was provided to allow for sufficient lead time for respondents to collect the necessary supporting evidence (see Appendix 2 for Possible Document

Requirements).

Overall, the pilot study provided critical conceptual feedback on the framework and design of the research and practical feedback to improve the conduct of the study.