TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE STUDY

The trustworthiness of the interpretations and the findings depended on being able to demonstrate how they were reached (LaBanca, 2004:321). The significance of trustworthiness, therefore, is that it cements the validity and credibility of the findings of a study while also providing checks and balances to maintain acceptable standards of scientific inquiry (Bowen, 2009:27). Credibility refers to the extent to which the results approximate reality and are judged to be accurate, trustworthy and reasonable (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010:102). In addressing credibility, an endeavour was made to present a true picture of the phenomenon under scrutiny. To ensure that credibility was achieved, two days per week for three weeks were spent with the participants. This prolonged engagement (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010:102) with the participants helped me to gather sufficient data as trust and confidence were built during that period.

It was important to indicate the possibility of the intrusion of my assumptions as an employee at the mine in the North-West Province. Validity was exercised by incorporating bracketing and rigour. Given the sometimes close relationship between the researcher and the research topic that may both precede and develop during the process of qualitative research, bracketing and rigour were methods used to ensure validity and to separate what may be emotionally challenging material.

3.7.1 Bracketing

Drew (2004:215) describes bracketing as “the task of sorting out the qualities that belong to the researcher’s experience of the phenomenon”. Gearing (2004:1430) describes bracketing as a “scientific process in which a researcher suspends or holds in abeyance his or her presuppositions, biases, assumptions, theories, or previous experiences to see and describe the phenomenon”. According to Chan, Fung and Chien (2013:2), bracketing is holding in abeyance the researcher’s

own “repertoires of knowledge, beliefs, values and experiences in order to accurately describe participants’ life experiences”.

As indicated in this study, as an employee at this North-West Province mine, I am responsible for managing, coordinating, and monitoring HRD targets and progress on a monthly and quarterly basis, of which AET forms a part. During reporting, I interact with different stream leaders including AET managers. The views of bracketing in this study are presented from this experiential perspective. This programme’s main aim was to evaluate the impact of AET computer-based programmes at the North-West Province mine (i.e. in the workplace). The purpose was also to explore how initial engagements with the AET computer programmes reflect possible change in the epistemology in the practice of teaching and learning within this context. The main activities have to do with face-to-face teaching and computer-based learning.

It was particularly important for me as a researcher to introduce bracketing at the initial stage of the research process when the study was first conceptualised and to continue with the process of bracketing throughout the research (Rolls & Relf, 2006:286). The rationale behind this was that preconceptions arising from personal experience with the research material were examined prior to undertaking the research study so that they could be monitored throughout the research endeavour as both a potential source of insight as well as potential obstacles to engagement.

Simultaneous bracketing with participants would have been appreciated. However, it was uncertain whether participants would be able to bracket their own preconceptions. Despite this presumption about participant bracketing, during data collection when conducting the interview, it was assumed that the participants brought their preconceptions or displayed their intentionality towards the phenomenon.

The methods which were used for bracketing included making notes intentionally to acknowledge and foreground my perceptions and presuppositions. These notes served as a reminder to engage more extensively with raw data provided by participants, which assisted me in sustaining my position as participant researcher. During the data collection phase, to denote thoughts and feelings, observational comments, memos and theoretical notes were written and kept. Memos

were used to expound the reasoning process of conducting research, methodological notes that expounded the procedural aspects of the study, and observational comments that allowed exploration of feelings and efforts put into the study. Rigour was another aspect that contributed to validating this study.

3.7.2 Rigour

Rigour is an important concept in research because it accounts for trust of one’s research in the eyes of peers and readership. It is synonymous with the validity, or even with the quality of the research (Melrose, 2001:163-164). It also means precision, accuracy, exactness, something that is scientific and unerring (Roget, Roget & Roget, 1980 cited in Melrose, 2001:164).

As part of the HRD team at the mine, I employed precautionary measures to ensure rigour by minimising subjectivity. I strived to record and interpret data with integrity and honesty. In this instance, it was a challenge not to impose my views and preconceptions on the data. Therefore, the “I” had to make a provision to strive to record and interpret the data with integrity and honesty in this study. Data collected from participant’s data wer not judged against my own values or existing knowledge. The coding of information was developed strictly from the participants’ interview transcripts.

While participants’ transcripts were read, matters that became of interest, such as words and expressions frequently used, were identified. To gain more understanding, pointers such as the repetition of words, situations, comparisons and expressions were noted. I observed and noted points of concern raised during the interviews and their frequency.