According to McMillan and Schumacher (1993, p. 486), qualitative researchers “…integrate the operations of organizing, analyzing and interpreting data and call the entire process, data analysis.” Mncube and Harber (2010) argue that data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and meaning to a mass of collected data. Marshall and Rossman (1995) suggest that data analysis is a messy, ambiguous, time-consuming, but also a creative and fascinating process.
McMillan and Schumacher (1993) describe qualitative data analysis as primarily an inductive process of organizing the data into categories and identifying patterns (relationships) among the categories.
A number of categories and patterns emerged from the data obtained for this study. Once the interviews had been concluded, the recordings were listened to several times in order to appreciate subtle features such as tone, pitch, intonation and other crucial aspects such as pauses, silence and emphasis. I transcribed the responses verbatim and translated all the interviews into English where necessary, before embarking on the data reduction process.
The data consisted of interview transcripts and notes, summaries of field notes accumulated during observations, and document reviews. All these rough data were transcribed and analysed according to Giorgi, Fiske and Murray’s (1975) phenomenological steps.
103
Firstly, each transcript was read to get an overall sense of the whole. Secondly, the transcripts were read to identify the transaction in the experience, with each transition signifying a separate unit of meaning. The general unit of meaning referred to the range of issues interviewees mentioned and these in turn were related to the overall focus of the research. This process was followed in order to find the deeper meaning in what the respondents had been saying. Thirdly, the redundancies in the units of meaning were eliminated, leaving me with the remaining units as they related to one another. Fourthly, the respondents’ language was transformed into the language of science and, finally, the insights were synthesised into a description of the entire experience of the participants.
Once the data had been obtained and classified, patterns (or themes) were identified. In searching for patterns, I tried to understand the complex links between various aspects of people’s situations, mental processes, beliefs, and actions as recommended by McMillan and Schumacher (1993). To do this, a data display was conducted. This process was an organized, compressed assembly of information that allowed me to draw conclusions and take action. The final stage of analysis was the drawing of conclusions and verification; however, much of this process took place from the start of data collection.
4.9.1 Credibility of data
Data retrieved from research should be accurate and reliable. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), in qualitative research trustworthiness is measured by interpretevist investigators using the criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability. Dane (1990) emphasizes that the responses to questions are not proof that the answers given reflect a respondent’s true feelings.
The one-on-one experience enabled me to encourage respondents to respond honestly and sincerely. I had to rephrase questions where necessary, use different methods to persuade respondents to answer questions, and encourage respondents to ask questions if they wished to do so. A major challenge involving observations was the risk of bias as alluded to by Moyles (2002) and Robson (2002), such as selective attention by the observer and reactivity.
104
The careful use of the data collection tools selected and staying intently focused on the objectives of the study helped overcome this challenge. To ensure that the data I retrieved was authentic; indicators were applied fully, consistently and securely with no variation in interpretation as advised by Cohen et al. (2007). Further questions were carefully designed in such a way that relevant information was elicited and irrelevant information was avoided.
Shenton (2004, p. 63) points out that one of the key criteria addressed by positivist researchers is
“…that of internal validity, in which they seek to ensure that their study measures or tests what is actually intended”. According to Merriam (1998), credibility deals with the question: “How congruent are the findings with reality?” Qualitative researchers are therefore advised to strive to establish confidence in the truth of the findings for the particular respondent and context in the research. Lincoln and Guba (1985), advice that credibility involves two aspects: first, carrying out the study in a way that enhances the believability of the findings and second, taking steps to demonstrate credibility to external readers.
4.9.1.2 Dependability of data
According to Shenton (2004, p.71), “…in addressing the issue of reliability the positivist employs techniques to show that, if the work were repeated in the same context with the same methods and with the same sample of respondents, similar results would be obtained.” Further, it is argued that credibility cannot be attained in the absence of dependability. Lincoln and Guba (1985) stress the close ties between credibility and dependability stating that, in practice, a demonstration of credibility goes some distance in ensuring dependability. This may be achieved through the use of overlapping methods such as both focus group and individual interviews.
4.9.1.3 Transferability of data
Merriam (1998, p. 39) believes that validity is concerned “…with the extent to which the findings of one can be applied to another situation.” According to Shenton (2004, p. 69), “...in positivist work the concern often lies in demonstrating that the results of the work at hand could be applied to a wider population.” Lincoln and Guba (1985) concur and argue that the
105
responsibility of the investigator is to provide sufficient descriptive data in the research report so that consumers can evaluate the applicability of the data to other contexts.
Shenton (2004, p. 66) believes that, where appropriate, “…site triangulation may be achieved by the participation of informants within several organizations so as to reduce the effects on the study of particular local factors peculiar to one situation. Where similar results at different sites are retrieved, findings may have greater credibility in the eyes of the reader.”
According to Anderson and Burns (1989), transferability responds to the question: “To what extent can the findings or conclusions of a particular study be said to be representative of other settings, with other people, and at other times?” Griffith (2000) advises that there are three things which a case study needs to show in order to produce generalisable findings: typicality, detailed description, and multi-site research.
Bertram (2004, p.155) advises that sampling is important “…to enable us to know whether a conclusion can be generalized to cases which were not included in the research.”
4.9.1.4 Confirmability of data
Conformability refers to objectivity, which involves the potential to draw congruencies between two or more independent people about the data’s accuracy, relevance, or meaning. This criterion involves establishing that the data presented represent the information respondents provided and that the interpretation of the data is not conjured up from the inquirer’s imagination. Lincoln and Guba (1985, p.539) assert that for this criterion to be achieved, “…the findings must reflect the respondents’ voice and the conditions of the inquiry, and not the biases, motivations, or perspective of the researcher.”
To enhance the possibility of retrieving valid responses, the questions I posed were relevant to the topic and phrased in an unambiguous way. Terminology used was simple and clearly defined to ensure it had the same meaning for all the respondents. Responses to all questions were captured on audio-tape and analyzed through a process of organizing the data into categories and identifying patterns (relationships) among the categories as suggested by McMillan and Schumacher (1993).
106
I was also guided by Cohen et al. (2007) who provide criteria for a valid interview and the careful planning of questions. They suggest that, to ensure that the particular interview used in the study will be suited to measure that which it is designed to measure, frankness and openness when responding are vital. These are realized by guaranteeing the confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents which were, in this study, educators, parents and learners. Where necessary, interview questions were asked differently to test and retest responses as advised by Fraenkel (1993).
4.10 Conclusion
The discussion above mapped the route I took in preparing and conducting the data collection process. The process involved seeking permission from all relevant stakeholders; selecting the research tools; stating the methods of their implementation and the advantages and disadvantages of each; selecting participants; providing brief reports on the selected schools; and providing a table describing how each tool would be used. A brief elucidation was provided on the analysis of the data. The principle of the trustworthiness of the study which includes reliability, validity, limitations and ethical consideration was highlighted. I described the vigorous data collection and analyses processes. The findings will be presented in detail in the following chapter.
107