3.6 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
3.7.4 Qualitative: Quality Criteria
The following section discusses the quality criteria for the qualitative phase of my study.
Despite the fundamental epistemological differences between QUAN+QUAL research, there are scientific similarities between the various approaches, such as both types of researchers using empirical observations to address RQs. Both sets of researchers incorporate safeguards into their inquiries to reduce confirmation bias - defined as “systematic overconfidence in a focal hypothesis” – (McKenzie, 2006, p. 577) and to enhance trustworthiness (Plano Clark &
Ivankova, 2016). Trustworthiness (see Section 3.7.4.2) is about establishing four criteria, namely, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, which are discussed in Sections 3.7.4.3 to 3.7.4.6.
3.7.4.2 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness in qualitative research refers to the degree to which the findings took place as the researcher reported them. Trustworthiness is flexible and negotiable, as readers may not share in the researcher’s subjective interpretation of the data (Cohen et al., 2018).
However, other people reading the research should be able to discern how the research interpretation occurred through reflexivity and peer debriefing. The term "reflexivity" refers to a researcher's understanding of the direct or indirect impact of her role in the research process on the findings (Cohen et al., 2018). As such, l remained reflexive throughout the research process by acknowledging and reflecting on the possible influence of researcher bias. I documented these reflections throughout the intervention in a research journal (Appendix G).
Despite my best efforts to be open to the participants' opinions and points of view, I realise that I entered the research field with my own frame of reference. Some of a
race, gender, and social status (Goodson & Gill, 2011). I was continuously aware of and acknowledged these assumptions and beliefs through reflection. I reflected on my own learning process, identifying themes, sub-themes, patterns, and possible connections between data (Goodson & Gill, 2011). In addition, I pondered on the tactics and strategies I utilised, determining which were successful and which were not.
3.7.4.3 Credibility
The term “credibility” refers to the research findings accurately reflecting the participants' replies (Cohen et al., 2018). The necessity of openness in any research project is emphasised by credibility, as openness is the foundation of public accountability, methodology, and outcomes. Participants should assess research findings for potential bias and one-sidedness.
As such, teachers had the opportunity to judge the credibility of the results as authentic and relevant by using member checking during joint teacher-researcher meetings (27 May 2019, 29 July 2019 and 21 September 2019). I double-checked my comprehension and depiction of the participants’ perspectives throughout my study process. Furthermore, detailed disclosures of methodological decisions and processes improved my study's rigour (Cohen et al., 2018).
Numerous data sources (For textual data: verbatim transcriptions of audio-recorded school- group presentations on PRA prompts – see Appendix E. For visual data: photographs of PRA posters – see Appendix F. For observation data: field notes and researcher journal on PRA- process – see Appendix G) were used and documented throughout the intervention to enhance the quality of data interpretation (Maree, 2019).
3.7.4.4 Transferability
Transferability refers to whether certain aspects of the research findings can be viewed as lessons learnt that might apply to various populations in similar settings (Nieuwenhuis, 2019).
Generalisations in qualitative studies to larger populations are not possible because occurrences inside a single sample population are not time- nor context-free. Transferability of these created working assumptions from case to case may be achievable, depending on the degree of contextual similarity (Willig, 2018). Although each with unique characteristics, the six participating schools share a similar challenged educational context. Furthermore, the majority of the participants are female, implying that the findings from my study could differ in other contexts and other genders. However, the reliability and transferability of these conclusions to other similar contexts or populations are enhanced by the variety and richness of qualitative data sources (Nieuwenhuis, 2019).
There are always aspects that are unique to a specific case or series of events that limit transferability to other contexts. Therefore, it is critical to have detailed information about the case under study to decide whether the working assumptions derived from the study apply to other cases or contexts (Maree & Pietersen, 2019). A researcher who intends to transfer
the results to a different context should take responsibility for determining whether the transfer is reasonable. As such, I provide rich descriptions of my study’s context in the form of photographs (see Photographs 1 to 51), statistics of the participating schools (see Table 3.2) and demographic information of participating teachers (see Table 3.4).
The focus of my study was to understand, measure and describe the impact of SC on resilience in teachers in primary schools. I purposively sampled six EC primary schools from lower socio-economic neighbourhoods and conveniently sampled teachers from these schools. The transferability of my findings is limited to (i) educational contexts characterised by similar structural disparity challenges, (ii) primary schools, (iii) mostly female teachers aged around 50 years of age with around 19 years of teaching experience on average, and (iv) tertiary teaching qualifications.
3.7.4.5 Dependability
Dependability refers to the researcher’s ability to account for changes that occur during the study and the social world by engaging in constant reflection through research reflexivity, and choosing multiple data sources such as transcriptions, photographs and written accounts (Cohen et al., 2018; Goodson & Gill, 2011). Being a reflexive researcher entails an awareness of the interconnectedness of the researcher and the social world and how they may be influenced by their perceptions (Cohen et al., 2018).
I was the primary instrument for collecting and analysing data for both the QUAN+QUAL component of the research design. My role would have been the same for the quantitative component of the research design, whoever administered the questionnaires. For the qualitative component of the research design, I had the opportunity to take advantage of the possibilities to gather and develop significant and rich data in my capacity. The reality that humans are subjective beings, on the other hand, limited my role as a human instrument.
Because researchers do not have direct access to another's perspective, an accurate description of what was said or meant is impossible (Cohen et al., 2018). I was mindful of how I perceived the research process and how my background and perspective may have influenced my impressions of my study outcomes throughout the research process. I attempted to address this potential problem by thinking about the potential filters that could influence my interpretations and jotted them down in my research journal. To limit subjectivity and to reflect on possible interpretations after each session, I held regular debriefing sessions with my co-researcher and supervisors. I used multiple data sources (For textual data:
verbatim transcriptions of audio-recorded school-group presentations on PRA prompts – see Appendix E. For visual data: photographs of PRA posters - see Appendix F. For observation data: field notes and researcher journal on PRA-process – see Appendix G) in my study to
enhance dependability. In addition, I documented the research with photographs displayed throughout the research chapters (see Photographs 1-51).
3.7.4.6 Confirmability
In qualitative research, confirmability refers to the degree to which a study's outcome reflects the inquiry's focus rather than the researcher's prejudices (Babbie, 2020). A sufficient audit trail should be left behind to enable a third party to trace the sources used to establish the interpretations and conclusions to increase confirmability. In Table 3.1, at the beginning of the chapter, I provide a clear explanation and account of my research process with documented data sources and refer the reader to the relevant appendices. In addition, I remained reflexive throughout the research process by continually reflecting on the research process to enhance confirmability (refer to Appendix G). As the data collection took place with a research team, this enabled me to get input from my co-researchers during data collection and rely on participants’ input during member checking. Member checking occurred during joint teacher- researcher meetings on 27 May 2019, 29 July 2019, and 21 September 2019 (refer to Appendix F for the research visit schedule). My supervisors assisted me in deriving results and formulating findings in line with my data throughout the research process.