This section provides the setting of the study, the details of the participants and outlines the phases of the study.
3.5.1 The setting and the sample
The study was conducted at state funded primary schools in east and south Auckland. Using group sampling 26 primary schools ranging from decile one to ten were selected to become the sample group. This sampling strategy known as purpose sampling, that is, selecting participants on the basis of the characteristics that are being sought, best suited the purpose of this study (L. Cohen et al., 2011).
In New Zealand, decile rates were designed as an administrative tool to group schools according to the socio-economic status of the families of the student population so as to reduce socio-economic disparity (Ministry of Education, 2012b). A school's decile does not indicate the overall socio-economic mix of the school but rather the socio-economic
communities in which the majority of children are drawn from. There are ten decile ratings with decile one schools having the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities. The lower the school's decile rating, the more funding the school receives so as
33
to provide the required resources needed to support their children's learning. Schools then choose how to best cater for the needs of their students with the allocated funds.
Following an email, containing an invitation (Appendix B) from the researcher to the principals of the selected 26 schools, only three schools agreed to participate in the study. The reason cited by principals for declining the request included: the school's already
participating in other research projects; the teachers were already overloaded with work; and involvement in education reviews with the Ministry of Education. Consent from principals as gatekeepers of their schools was deemed crucial in ensuring the study was conducted in an ethical manner. This approach was planned to ensure informed consent on the part of the school and their teachers, as well as anonymity and confidentiality for potential participants. An advantage of the approach through the principals was that this ensured that the identities of all the teachers in the school were not known to the researcher.
In order to gain access to and recruit participants, an information letter (Appendix C) was emailed to the principals of the identified schools. In the email the assistance of
principals in forwarding the email to teachers was requested. The letter informed the teachers about the study and provided a link to the online Survey Monkey questionnaire so that they could view the questions.
Following the invitation, thirteen teachers agreed to participate in the research,
reflecting on their perceptions of the female and male colleagues they have worked with. All the participants were female teachers and all were from a decile two school. Two schools did not participate in the study and neither of the principals provided any insight into why their schools did not participate.
3.6 Schedule
Two weeks after the initial letter to the principals was sent out, a poor response required that a follow-up email was sent to the principals who had not declined. They were once again requested, if they approved.
34 3.7 Data Analysis
The data collected was recorded, analysed and interpreted. Cohen et al. (2011) asserts that a representative range of responses is what the researchers should aim for. Although the number of participants was relatively small, the researcher was able to answer key questions and meet the objectives of the study. The data was exported from Survey Monkey's database and imported into Microsoft Excel. The three domains used in the questionnaire design provided the framework and headings for the data analysis and interpretation of both the quantitative and qualitative data.
3.7.1 Quantitative data
Items on the questionnaire were scored on a 1-5 basis; 1 for strongly agree and 5 for strongly disagree. The number of participants whose responses matched each other was added up and the results were graphed so as to illustrate and compare the extent to which the teachers' perceptions of their male and females colleagues varied. A number of questions were not answered by the participants and hence the number of responses per question is noted. All results were reported separately for teachers' perceptions of male and female teachers.
3.7.2 Qualitative data
The qualitative data was collated by grouping the teachers' responses for both female and male colleagues. Similar responses relating to teachers' perceptions with regards to male role models in primary teaching were grouped. Similar responses to the roles and types of jobs for male and females in the education setting were also grouped. Throughout the analysis, pertinent comments made by the participants were selected for reporting in the findings.
3.7.3 Comparative analysis
The typed up analyses of primary school teachers perceptions of gender-based differences were studied. Information was grouped into the three domains: teachers as self, teacher-student relationships, and teacher collegiality. The findings were then reported under
35
the appropriate headings. The perceived jobs for male and female teachers in the education sector, the perceived need for male role models in primary schools, and relevant demographic data were grouped and the findings reported under the appropriate headings.