Validity, trustworthiness and generalisation

There have been debates about the use of the term „validity‟ in qualitative research and justification for using the term in critical realism research is still thin (Maxwell, 2012). Drawing from Maxwell (2012) to ensure validity in this study, I considered the three types of validity: descriptive validity, interpretive validity and theoretical validity.

Descriptive validity is the factual accuracy of the account of researchers, that “they are not making up or distorting the things they saw and heard” (Maxwell, 2012:134). If a participant made a particular statement in an interview this should not be “misheard, mistranscribed or misremembered”. For descriptive validity, I paid attention to “issues of omission as well as commission” acknowledging that “no account can include everything” (Maxwell, 1992:287). I tried to ensure that constructs were accurate and portrayed as they had been presented by participants. My interpretation of interviews relied as much as possible on the participants‟ own words and concepts (interpretive data). Based on this understanding, the information which I reported in Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight, were as true to the intended meanings of the participants as possible. As mentioned earlier in Section 4.5.5, the audio recorder and field notes were used to capture the data and reflect on what had been interpreted. Through careful transcription, thick description was made possible to ensure that I was realistically interpreting the meaning of the participants. Using follow-up discussions, reflective interviews after the observations of the PLC activities and member checking (Shenton, 2004; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011) of interview transcripts I was able to share the interpretations with participants in order to corroborate the data.

In some cases, participants did not return transcripts for member checking thus in cases were I felt it was necessary, I only forwarded extracts from the transcripts that I needed them to verify and that strategy seemed to have contributed to validity of the study.

Interpretive validity can be described as “appropriate primarily because this aspect of understanding is most central to interpretive research, which seeks to comprehend phenomena not on the basis of the researcher‟s perspective and categories, but from those of the participants in the situations studied” (Maxwell, 2012:138). Unlike descriptive validity which can either be etic or emic, interpretive validity “pertains to aspects of an account for which the terms are emic. This is because, while accounts of physical and behavioural phenomena can be constructed from a variety of perspectives, accounts of meaning must be based initially on the conceptual framework of the people whose meaning is in question” (ibid.:138). To ensure interpretive validity I tried to comprehend the values of the teachers and Fundisa for Change partners not on the basis of my perspective but those of the participants and the situations of the study area. The use of member checking and use of thick descriptions helped to avoid misinterpretations.

Theoretical validity refers “to an account‟s validity as theory of some phenomenon” (Maxwell, 2012:140). A theory includes the concepts or categories that the theory employs and the relationship thought to exist between the concepts (ibid.). Theoretical validity was ensured in the study through in-depth reading into key concepts used in the study i.e. functionings, capabilities, conversion factors, PLCs, continuing professional development processes and biodiversity. The broader views and context of PLCs were engaged with throughout the study in relation to the research questions. The theoretical frameworks and methodologies chosen for the study were consistently used and clear arguments were made throughout the study to ensure rigour.Rather than being concerned with the purpose, rigour and application alone of different procedures during the study, I also considered the actual conclusions drawn.

Another way of ensuring validity and trustworthiness in the study was through triangulation

(Patton, 2002; Shenton, 2004; Cohen et al., 2011; Maxwell, 2012; Yin, 2012; 2014).Whil e the use of one data collection methods suffers from some common methodological shortcomings, their distinct characteristics also result in individual strengths (Yin, 2014). The use of different data collection methods (see Section 4.5) helped to triangulate and to build on each type of data collection method while at the same time compensating for potential weaknesses in any single approach (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2014). Triangulation allowed for a broader and more secure understanding of science teachers‟ valued functionings related to the teaching and learning of biodiversity and conversion factors that enable and/or constrain those functionings (Maxwell,

valued beings and doings and the PLC context in which it happened, interviews were valuable in providing descriptions of the teachers‟ beings and doings in the PLCs and other valuable information related to the research questions that I could not observe. Interviews were further used to check for accuracy of observations (Maxwell, 2012). It was useful to use both observations and interviews to gain a more complete account of how continuing professional development programmes provide conversion factors that expand and/or constrain the functionings, agency and structures in science teachers PLCs than either could alone provide. According to Shenton (2004) triangulation also happens through the use of diverse informants and through a range of documents. As discussed in Section 4.4, fifteen teachers and thirteen Fundisa for Change partners participated in the study to allow for individual viewpoints and experiences which were used to construct a rich picture for scrutiny. Triangulation helped me to verify and look for consistency, patterns and discontinuities in the data generated (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007).

Sagor (2000) observed that research results have been shared electronically over the years. He argued that to improve the quality and validity, we need to share our research while it is still in progress. This allows for critique from the research community that will help improve the quality of the final outcome of the research (ibid.). It is with these perspectives that during the research process, different platforms were used to share different aspects of the research to receive comments and feedback from peers and academics. The initial ideas of the research were presented at the Namibian Environmental Education Network conference in Namibia, April 2013. The concept of PLCs was presented at the Education Association of South Africa conference in January 2014, Free State, South Africa. Some key findings of the research were presented at the Rhodes University postgraduate conference in October 2014, and at the National Environmental Skills Summit in March 2015, Pretoria, South Africa. the The National Environmental Skills Summit was a particularly important platform to share the research as the audiences were Fundisa for Change partners, some of whom were participants in the study. This was thus not only useful to share some of the research findings but also to get critical feedback on the interpretations of the initial study findings.

The Rhodes University faculty of education (where the study was registered) host s doctoral weeks three times a year. These weeks provide opportunities for PhD students to present progress on their research. It was thus important for me throughout the research process to use those weeks to share aspects of the research, particularly the aspects I was grappling with. The first doctoral week in 2015 provided an opportunity to share the study with an international audience as several Swedish scholars were part of the week. Weekly departmental seminars were also useful platforms, not only to share progress on the research, but also to critique literature. This helped to strengthen the

theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches of the study. The faculty of education offers research design courses two to three times a year. Participating in these courses has been particularly important in strengthening this chapter of the study. The perspectives provided by different people at the above mentioned platforms challenged the assumptions I had made as a researcher whose closeness to the study frequently inhibited my ability to view it with real detachment (Shenton, 2004). Questions and comments enabled the refinement of methods, and I was able to develop a greater explanation of the research design and strengthen the arguments in the light of the comments made. The research was a reflexive process, and involved constantly seeking for more information and interaction between the researcher, the subjects and the topic in question and contextualising findings (Maxwell, 2012).

Some researchers have identified research generalisability as an element for research validity (Easton, 2010). Generalisability “refers to the extent to which one can extend the account given of a particular situation or population to other persons, times, or settings tha n those directly studied” (Maxwell, 2012:141). Generalisation in qualitative research usually takes place through the development of a theory that not only makes sense of the particular persons or situation studied, but also shows how the same process, in different situations, can lead to different results (Maxwell, 1992; 2012; Hammersley, 2012; Yin, 2012; 2014).

The goal of most qualitative studies is not to generalise a claim that difference exists between settings, groups or categories of individuals that a relationship exists between specific variables for some population. Instead it is to understand the processes, meanings, and local contextual influences involved in the phenomena of interest for the specific settings or individuals studied. (Maxwell, 2012:94)

I worked with „fuzzy‟ generalisations (Bassey, 2001) in this study. Critical realism argues against absolute truth, claiming that our knowledge is fallible thus subject to change (see Chapter Three). To acknowledge the fallibility of my knowledge, I have used fuzzy statements such as: maybe, unlikely, likely, in the case of this study, to leave space for other possibilities. Bhaskar (1978) argued, however, that generality in Social Sciences cannot exist at the level of the empirical but it can be established at the level of „deep structures of reality‟. Fundisa for Change is a national programme thus drawing expertise from all over South Africa. The Fundisa for Change partners interviewed in this study drew from their experiences beyond the PLCs in the study. However, this is not adequate to claim for generality in this study on how continuing professional development programmes act as conversion factors that expand and/or constrain the functionings for Life Sciences teachers‟ PLCs in South Africa. Chapters Six, Seven and Eight will provide evidence that PLCs are context dependent (Lotz-Sisitka & Raven, 2004; Flyvbjerg, 2006). This implies that among other factors, the Life Sciences teachers‟ functionings, capabilities and agency will be

influenced by the context in which the PLC is situated. This implies that the use of PLCs in different contexts may yield different findings. The findings in this study are thus only applicable to the three PLCs used in the study. However, the information given on the concept of PLCs and its potential for teachers‟ biodiversity knowledge can be used as a base to mirror how PLCs may look like in other cases outside the study, as can insights on the deep structures of reality influencing the cases.

Maxwell (2012) noted that researchers are inescapably part of the social world they are researching. They bring their own biographies to the situation they are researching and participants may behave in a particular way in their presence (ibid.). During the time of this research I played a role in the Fundisa for Change programme. It is thus necessary for me to explain in the next section how I used reflexivity to maintain and distinguish between my role as a researcher and as a participant in the Fundisa for Change programme.