97
period of six (6) weeks. As a token of appreciation for participation in the study, the learner participants were each given a ‘goodie bag’ containing bath soap, body lotion, and toothpaste.
Sanitary pads were added for the girl participants. The ‘goodie bags’ were given to learners at the end of the interviews.
4.7.3.2 Key informant interviews
All the ethical procedures explained above were followed as they applied to the adult participants. As proposed by Seidman (1991; 1998), the researcher conducted three sequential and strategically staggered sessions with each of the nine adult participants. The first one was meant to familiarise the participant with the topic and develop rapport. Establishing rapport with the participant is critical to the quality of data generated because there will be a desirable level of trust which ultimately leads to openness (Hennink et al., 2011; Steinke, 2004). It was assumed that the period between the first contact with the participant and the second interview would allow the participant to deeply engage with the topic leading to the interview yielding rich and thick descriptive data. The researcher had to listen to audio recorded interviews before conducting the final follow-up interviews where vague issues would be clarified.
98
Qualitative research tends to produce huge volumes of data, which some scholars suggest could be a result of unfocused interviewing (Kvale, 1996). It is arguable that the production of huge quantities of data is inevitable hence the inception of computer programming made data analysis more efficient. However, computer-based programmes are meant to assist with data analysis. Nvivo (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) software programme was used to organise and manage the data through identifying categories (codes), themes and domains. However, such computer based qualitative data soft wares are only tools in the qualitative data analysis toolbox, and obviously they cannot human input to meditate on the data to arrive at a conclusion (Atherton & Elsmore, 2007; Morison & Moir, 1998).
Data was further analysed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis using a six-phase method as explained by Braun and Clarke (2006) to, “provide a rich and detailed, yet complex, account of data” (p.78) was considered ideal for this study. The initial stage of data analysis was characterised by the researcher’s perusal of the transcripts generated. However, Ulin et al.
(2005) argue that in qualitative research, analysis is not a specific event but rather an on-going process that informally unfolds well before the formal stage of data analysis. In this study, each recorded audio interview clip was listened to prior to the next interview being conducted. This approach is supported by Lindlof (1995) who posits that transcription should be conducted immediately after the focus group interview to help shape the next discussion since it could highlight issues that required being followed-up, dropped or introduced. The researcher endeavoured to use Lindlof’s (1995) suggestion to generate the richest data. Overall, Lindlof’s (1995) approach helped to enrich the quality of the data collected.
Thorough reading resulted in the researcher becoming “immersed” in the data which precipitated an increased familiarity with the depth and breadth of the data sets. Immersing oneself in the data is analogously described by Fourie (2007) as ‘deep-drilling,’ a phrase that emphasises the essence of gaining a deep understanding of underlying issues in a study. In the
99
second phase, interesting features of the data were systematically coded. Relevant data was coalesced to each code.
Thirdly, codes were collated into tentative themes. At this stage, all data related to each theme were grouped accordingly. As such, some codes would form either main themes, sub- themes or they could even be discarded. Essentially candidate themes were combined, refined, separated or discarded. The fourth phase was that of reviewing the themes, verifying if they corresponded with coded extracts thereby creating a thematic map of the analysis. At stage four, there were two levels of theme reviewing and refinement and these were: reading each collated extract within individual themes and reading through the whole data set. This was followed by defining and naming of the themes and finally relating the analysis to both the research and literature.
Constant perusal of the data set for the researcher to be closely acquainted with the findings, a process described as ‘immersion’ culminated into the identification of four broad themes. A theme is defined as the main, recurrent idea. In simple terms, a theme captures some level of patterned experiences and views relevant to the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To avoid the ‘smash and grab’ approach to research which scholars such as Holdaway (2000) warn against, the findings were discussed with study participants. Doing so served a duality of purposes, firstly to enhance data validation, and secondly, that step was an ethical consideration where the researcher sought to demonstrate responsibility for whatever undesired consequences that could have emanated from their participation in the study.
4. 9 Trustworthiness in the study
In line with the qualitative paradigm, quantitative terminology is deliberately avoided, not only to steer clear from the long-standing debates and proclaimed rivalry between the two major traditions, but also to demonstrate consistence with the research approach adopted in the
100
current study. Often, novice researchers, use the terms validity and reliability indiscriminately, even when referring to qualitative inquiry; doing so is a problem of nomenclature that should be avoided, not least to show the autonomy of the qualitative paradigm. The equivalence of validity and reliability is trustworthiness (Guba, 1981; Silverman, 2001; Shenton, 2004).
Positivists often critique and question the trustworthiness of qualitative research, perhaps because it is assessed differently when compared to quantitative methods (Shenton, 2004). At the core of trustworthiness in qualitative research is capacity to sustain the argument that findings emanating from the inquiry are worthwhile (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In assessing trustworthiness, researchers should strive to convince themselves and others that study findings are meaningful (Babbie & Mouton, 2003). The various strategies used to enhance trustworthiness in the current study are described below.
Guba (1981) identifies four important criteria to enhance trustworthiness in a qualitative inquiry. These are; credibility (internal validity), transferability (external validity generalisability), dependability (reliability), and confirmability (objectivity). Like validity and reliability, these critical aspects are interdependent (Babbie & Mouton, 2003). For example, one cannot talk of transferability in the absence of credibility, or credibility where there is no dependability. To ensure the credibility of findings, member checks were conducted where participants got the opportunity to check the data as well as the interpretation. This was an important exercise because it helped assess accuracy of the findings. Secondly, member checks yielded extra volunteer information that ultimately contributed to the richness and thickness of the data. The other strategy used in pursuit of credibility was peer debriefing. The researcher and the supervisors would meet regularly, and different epistemological and methodological aspects were discussed, and the interview guide was refined. Shenton (2004) argues that frequent debriefing sessions help widen the researcher’s vision and may expose researcher bias and preferences which can then be mitigated. Because interviews were conducted in a local
101
dialect (Shona-Karanga) such that transcription was done concurrently with translation, transcripts were availed to two independent moderators to compare recordings with the written data.
Furthermore, triangulation of sources through use of FGDs and key informant interviews (KIIs) enhanced credibility. Triangulation is a process that involves looking at a topic from different viewpoints (Neuman, 2014). Denzin (2012) suggests that the concept of triangulation should be renamed ‘crystal refraction’ to emphasize the aspect of viewing the research issue from multiple vantage points. Most people understand triangulation of methods as involving a mixed method approach, combining qualitative with quantitative methods in one study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). However, using FGDs and KIIs in a single study is basically a form of triangulation. Furthermore, soliciting views from both adolescents and adult participants constituted triangulation. Neuman (2014) refers to this as triangulation of observers. FGDs and KIIs were combined in this study because it was a lot easy since the two are both qualitative techniques and therefore they complement each other very well. This kind of triangulation enhances credibility in qualitative research through a net gain: the strengths of each method more than cancel the weaknesses of their counterpart (Brewer, 2003).
In the current study, transferability was enhanced through providing thick descriptions of the data. Doing so was a way of placing the data in its proper context to allow the reader to understand participants’ views in relation to a given topic. It was assumed that providing the nuances of the contexts in which discussions were held would help the reader understand the interview excerpts better. Furthermore, use of a purposive sampling strategy also contributed to transferability. Participants comprising the study sample were relevant to the topic. In line with arguments by prominent scholars such as Babbie and Mouton (2003), Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Shenton (2004), a plausible description of credibility suffices to demonstrate the
102
dependability of the current study findings. This argument precludes regurgitation of the same strategies described above to demonstrate how dependability was enhanced in the current study.
The last criterion is confirmability. To sustain confirmability, which often seeks to mitigate researcher bias, the data collection tool was pilot-tested, and the researcher acknowledges that use of two qualitative forms of data collection (FGDs and KIIs) could have impacted on the quality of the data. Furthermore, the research interview is far from a conversation between equal partners because the researcher “defines and controls the situation”
(Kvale, 1996, p.6). In this study, the researchers were conscious of their ‘privileged position’
and its implications on what the youth, through this skewed relationship could or couldn’t say which ultimately enhanced the trustworthiness of the data generated.
According to Marshall and Rossman (2011), trustworthiness is essentially intertwined with ethical considerations observed during the execution of the study. As such, these authors advance an argument that judging trustworthiness using ‘traditional’ canons for judging the soundness of a study such as credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability, should not be separated from ethical concerns. As such, the researchers in this study scrupulously upheld the injunction primum non nocere – first, do no harm. There was an exquisite sensitivity to the power dynamics involved between the researchers (as figures of authority) and the young learner participants, and the other study participants in general.
Similarly, Davies and Dodd (2002) argue that, “ethics are an essential part of rigorous research…not to be treated as a separate part of our research – a form filled in for the ethics committee and forgotten” (p.281). Essentially, the researchers constantly sustained a keen commitment to sensitive ‘ethics in practice’ issues. For example; emphasizing that participants were free to withdraw from the study is an ethical concern, but it also impacts on data quality
103
in that those who take part are less likely to lie because they voluntarily participate (Shenton, 2004).