S AMPLE SIZE

Purposive samples can range between one to forty or more participants and is related to the purpose of the research problem, the availability of information-rich participants and the data collection strategy (Mc Millan & Schumacher, 2006:322; Bryman 2012:415). Since this study focused only on the situation at the secondary school in question and was not intended for generalisation to the greater population, the sample size was limited to the number of information-rich participants who were willing to participate, or to the saturation level.

Questionnaires were completed by not less than forty Grade 10 learners. Participants were sourced based on knowledge and experience with regards to the discipline system at the secondary school, as well as the possibility of offering differing views. Thus all Grade 10 learners from different social groupings were intentionally asked to participate so as to obtain diverse perceptions. The answering of questionnaires took place at

78 school outside of official teaching time. The Grade 10 learner population was chosen as a sample as they have been at the secondary school long enough to have experienced the effects of the current disciplinary system and still have a vested interest in implementing possible change.

A letter was sent out to all Grade 10 learners and their parents explaining the purpose of the research and the procedure to be followed (Appendix v). Any Grade 10 learner who volunteered to participate in the questionnaire and had parental consent was accepted.

Focus groups involve no more than ten learners per focus group and participants were sourced based on knowledge and differing perspectives. The study included one focus group consisting of the members of the Representative Council of Learners at the secondary school, as these are learners who have been voted for by other learners to represent their views. Each session was between one to one and a half hours in duration and took place at school, outside of official school hours. Letters were sent home to all the representative council learners, explaining the purpose of the research and the procedure to be followed (Appendix v). Only members of the Representative Council of Learners who had signed consent were considered for the focus group sessions.

Only one in depth interview was conducted with a member of the executive staff. The interviewee was chosen based on his experience with the discipline system in question. The interviewee has had a long history at the secondary school and has experience with this system as an educator, a head of department and now as a part of senior management. This experience qualifies the interviewee as an information-rich source. The interview was between one to one and a half hours and was intended simply as a means of comparison in perspectives.

3.3.4.5 SATURATION

Saturation is the point at which further investigation does not render new information but rather repeated or redundant information. Additional data will only confirm categories,

79 themes and conclusions already reached. Saturation determines the sample size in qualitative studies (Mason, 2010:2)

3.3.4.6 TRUSTWORTHINESS

To ensure trustworthiness questionnaires and focus group interviews were used to counterbalance the validity and reliability of methods as a form of triangulation. Triangulation increases the accuracy of interpretation and confirms that data obtained is not due to chance or circumstances. Triangulation involves cross-checking multiple data sources and collection procedures to evaluate the extent to which all evidence converges (Mason, 2010:7). To find regularities in the data, the researcher compares different sources, situations and methods to see whether the same pattern keeps recurring (Flick, 2014:242).

Trustworthy data should be selected by assessing solicited versus unsolicited data, subtle influences amongst the participants, specific versus vague statements and accuracy of the sources (Mc Millan & Schumacher, 2006: 374; Rossman & Rallis, 2011:59). Trustworthiness implies credibility, confidence in the findings, transferability, that results can be generalised, dependability, that findings are consistent, conformability and that findings can be confirmed by other’s research (Mc Millan & Schumacher, 2006: 374; Rossman & Rallis, 2011:59). The results from this study adhered to all these criteria apart from not being generalisable to other situations as the investigation was specific to a secondary school in Gauteng.

Qualitative researchers agree on strategies that promote trustworthiness in a study. These procedures are well described by (Mc Millan & Shumacher, 2006:375) and include:

- Triangulation or multiple sources of data as evidence.

- Member checks or arranging for those who provided data to evaluate the conclusions.

- Saturation or continuous data collection to the point where more data adds little to regularities that have already surfaced.

80 - Plausible alternatives or the rationale for ruling out alternative explanations and

accounting for discrepant (negative) cases.

3.3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The researcher is responsible for ensuring the ethical quality of the inquiry and thus has an obligation to reflect on the foreseeable repercussions of the research (Egwuonwu, 2008:61; Cohen et al. 2013:512). The following ethical considerations were taken into account for this research study (Mack et al. 2005:54; Mc Millan & Schumacher, 2006:334):

- The researcher obtained approval for the research to be conducted from the school and the department of education concerned (Appendix I and Appendix ii). - The researcher clearly stated the aims, objectives and voluntary nature of the

study, as well as possible benefits and risks involved to the individual and the school at large (Appendix v).

- Furthermore the researcher obtained informed consent from the guardians of participants and assent from participants as they were minors. Participants were informed of voluntary participation, confidentiality and the limits thereof and their right to withdraw at any time without negative effect (Appendix vi and Appendix vii).

- The researcher provided help (debriefing) for any participants who could have, as a result of participation, been harmed, as well as the opportunity to receive help from persons not involved in the study (school counsellor). Detailed feedback for all parties involved in the research study was provided.

- Although staff members were greatly not involved in the study, there could have been negativity regarding the research conducted. The researcher was transparent with regards to the purpose, procedure, possible advantages and risks involved in the study as well as the ethical considerations and permission granted to conduct the study.

81 Any names of educators mentioned by participants during the investigation were asked to remain anonymous. The researcher tried her best to accommodate the needs and concerns of the staff.

- The researcher ensured a professional approach by paying attention to the following precepts: The researcher must be familiar with own biases, assumptions, expectations and values, with regards to the school. The researcher must be empathetic, intelligent, energetic and interested in listening. The researcher must be open to embracing multiple realities. The researcher must be an effective interviewer, moderator and note taker.

- The Grade 10 group of 2013 was not known to or taught by the researcher which helped prevent bias, nor did the researcher have any involvement other than research with the secondary school.

- Participants remained anonymous in the research report as well as to the staff of the secondary school, so as to prevent bias and/or any adverse effects to staff or participants.

- The research proposal was approved by UNISA’s ethical committee (Appendix iii).

Unfortunately within focus groups, confidentiality cannot be assured. For this reason the focus group participants were instructed not to use names throughout the sessions; this includes names of participants, educators and schools. They were also reminded at the end of each session to respect each other’s privacy and right to anonymity (Rossman & Rallis, 2011:59).