Sampling procedure

What is sampling? Zikmund (2000:133) defines sampling as a process of selecting a manageable sample size. The aim of such a selection is to ensure that the researcher taps the most credible and right information that will enable him/her acquire the right findings and draw the right conclusions. Nsubuga (2000:87) indicates that in qualitative research, sampling is based on the location of the study and quality of the participants not the quantity of the data to be collected. The researcher aims at getting credible information if the participants are trustworthy and at the same time, they have the capacity and experience to provide the rightful information. Kothari (2003:55) further argues that sampling enables the researcher to study a relatively small number of units drawn from the universe. If the researcher uses the entire universe for study, he is likely to make incomplete coverage, which is why he must study a smaller proportion of the universe, a sample. Kothari (2003:145) articulates that the use of sampling to select a sample from a universe is aimed at economizing time. Sampling is less time consuming than the census. For example, the dependence on information from an entire universe usually takes very long time and a lot of money than the use of a small proportion of a universe, the sample. Amin (2005:239) adds that sampling ensures completeness and a high degree of accuracy due to a limited area of

166

operation. In dealing with a sample, the volume of work is reduced; therefore, careful execution of fieldwork is possible. The processing of the data is also done more accurately, to produce accurate results.

6.5.1.1 Non-probability sampling strategies

In order to select the appropriate sample for the study, the researcher used a non-probability sampling strategy. Non-probability sampling strategies are disproportionate sampling procedures that do not use a systematic method of selecting samples for use. They are mostly used in qualitative studies (Amin, 2005:237). For example, Mohapi (2007:145) also indicates that in qualitative research the sample is arbitrarily selected because in this case the representativeness of the population is not the central issue. What is central is choice of credible participants for the study, through a clear description of the natural setting. Nsubuga (2000:78) argues that non- probability sampling is a subjective strategy common to qualitative studies. Again Puchta and Porter (2004:88) further argue that in non-probability sampling, the units are selected at the discretion of the researcher. Even Koul (2007:50) observes that non-probability sampling uses human judgment in selecting units and have no theoretical basis for estimating population characteristics. Furthermore, Nsubuga (2000:45) argues that non-probability sampling is whereby the elements in the universe do not have a known probability of being selected. Instead, such sampling is based on the researcher‟s experience and on the participants‟ credibility and sensitivity towards a subject. This qualitative research study therefore used non-probability sampling methods because it did not aim at producing statistically representative sample or draw statistical inference. The choice of the sampling techniques enabled the researcher to select the most appropriate sample for the study. The study used two non-probability sampling strategies and these were: purposive sampling and maximum variation.

a) Purposive sampling

Koul (2007:244) defines purposive sampling as a type of sampling where the investigator uses his own judgment to select the participants of his study. Judgment in purposive sampling, as used in this present study, was based on the purpose of the study and the appropriateness of participants (in terms of experience and professionalism) to answer the research questions. Creswell (2007:76) argues that in the case of a purposive sampling the number of people

167

interviewed is less important than the information needed from them and the kind of criteria used to select them. Therefore the investigator does not mind much about the size of the sample selected but the strength of the participants in the study context. In this case therefore, all participants that were chosen occupied important positions in the study.

The reasons to justify this above assertion are many. First, the learners were chosen because of their centrality in the study as the main unit of analysis. They are the unit of focus for the entire study. The prefects are the leaders chosen by the learners‟ population. They serve as a bridging link between the learners and school management as far as management of discipline is concerned. They help the educator to enforce the code of conduct. So they had valuable information on the management of school discipline and on values. The counsellors are quite important focal points of discipline and moral rearmament. These counsellors impart discipline and values using remediation and restorative justice.

The researcher chose not to include any interviews of other members of the SGB, except the principal, because all of them are “absentee landlords”. Being absentee landlords, the researcher found it a little hard to gather these people to participate in the interviews from time to time. Instead, he opted to exclude them in the entire study and only use the principal. The principals were chosen for the study because they are the heads of the schools so they are solely responsible for implementation of policy on school discipline. More so, principals are the secretaries to the School Governing Body (SGB) and the technical persons on this same body. This implies that they are always consulted by the SGB on all technical matters on school management including the optimal methods of enforcing learners‟ discipline. When the researcher wanted reports and minutes from the SGB regarding design and implementation of school policy, he easily accessed these documents from the principals who are the custodians. Therefore there was no reason why the researcher could include members of the SGB into the study when principals were present.

Every detail and thinking from the SGB was represented by the principals. Further still, principals and their deputies facilitate educators with resources to maintain discipline, they influence top school decisions which also affect choice of values to impart in learners. Musisi (2000:28) argues that school heads‟ (principals) management styles significantly influence the implementation of many school activities. If principals are hardworking, charismatic and

168

focused; they could drive many activities of the school to a positive direction. The deputy principals were used for the study in cases where the principal could not be reached for a word or had delegated his or her deputy to participate in the interview sessions. This means that whatever matter that needed further consultation with the principal, the deputy could easily consult the principal and feed the researcher with vital information.

b) Maximum variation as a sampling strategy

Maximum variation was also used to ensure information saturation. Maximum variation refers to varied sampling for heterogeneity. It is a form of purposive sampling (Nkata, 2003:6) and a sampling technique aimed at varying the participants until a time the investigator realizes information saturation (Nsubuga, 2000:65). In order to ensure that the information obtained was rich and sufficient, the researcher probed for more participant responses until maximum variation. However, variation of participants was done but did not exceed ten participants in each of the six schools as the maximum (see table 2). In this study, the investigator wanted to understand how a social phenomenon is understood among different people, in different settings, and at different times in order to ensure access to credible findings. When using maximum variation as a sampling strategy, the researcher selected several units or cases that maximize the diversity relevant to the research question. For example, he varied his selection by employing several participant groups to maximize diversity of opinions. In addition, the numbers chosen for interview in each group of participants was also varied and reasonable enough to give concrete assurance that the maximum variation was a quality exercise.

One interviewing the learners, for instance, the researcher realized that some answers to particular questions or themes required the intervention of other groups for more credible, in- depth, and professional information that is necessary in theory building. Where prefects could come in to supplement or educators, the researcher interviewed them for such information additions. In other words, participants were varied from time to time depending on the themes that emerged and the vitality of information collected. For some issues that would necessitate, still, the intervention of higher authority like educators, principals and counsellors; the researcher was more than ready to collect such information and analyse it immediately to see the themes

169

that emerged in order to aid the next step in data collection. In this way, maximum variation was articulated throughout the sampling process (See fig.5).