According to Gibbert and Ruigrok (2010) data in the case study approach are collected by multiple methods. Consequently, different data collecting tools were used in this study. Kothari (2004) argues that research data can be categorised into primary or secondary data. Primary data for this research was obtained from interviews (semi-structured) and focus group discussions.
Secondary data was obtained from learners’ autobiographies and documentary sources which in this research were school records.
4.8.1 Semi-Structured interview
Interview is one of the most important sources of case study information (Yin, 2009). According to Kvale and Brinkmann (2009): “Interview is literally an inter view. An inter-change of views between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest” (p. 145). Interviews are best means of collecting people’s stories (Seidman, 2006). They enabled learners to freely talk about their experiences (stories) beginning from events that took place in their home countries up to events happening in the host country. Interviews were good for this study because they allowed children to give voice to their own experiences and understanding of their world (Kvale &
Brinkmann, 2009).
In-depth interviews which were conducted enabled children to share their perspectives of what it means to be refugees. Mack et al. (2005) argued that in-depth interviews are ideal to use when the research is about experiences of vulnerable people. They (interviews) allow participants to freely express their views about a sensitive topic. Interviews elicited refugee learners’
experiences during pre-migration, transmigration and post-migration, and also enabled me to make a comprehensive meaning of their occurrences. Seidman (2006) reported that in-depth interviews are associated with understanding somebody’s lived experiences. Thus, semi- structured interviews enabled me to understand refugee children’s lived experiences.
93 Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from the school principal, parents/guardians teachers, counsellor and learners. The key feature of semi-structured interviews is that participants have the freedom to express their views about the subject. They are not restricted by the researcher (Cohen et al., 2007). Participants can best voice their experiences unconstrained by any perspective of the researcher (Creswell, 2008). Semi-structured interviews were ideal in this case because they enabled me to ask for more information from the respondents by probing questions based on their responses and, at the same time, remained focused on the study. The main focus of interviews was on learners’ identities and their migration and school experiences.
Participants who consented to the use of audio tapes had their interviews recorded. Some interviewed learners refused to be recorded, notes were taken during interaction with them.
4.8.2 Documentary Sources
According to Punch (2009, p. 158): “Documents both historical and contemporary are a rich source of data for education and social research”. Reviewed documentary sources for this study include school records and profiles. Yin (2009) said: “except for studies of preliterate societies, documentary information is likely to be relevant to every case study topic” (p. 101). Information obtained from documents is likely to be more informative because participants would have carefully written it. Creswell (2009) argues that documents represent data which are thoughtful because participants would have given attention when compiling them.
School records and profiles provided statistical numbers of learners at the school since its inception in 2008. They also provided information about the curriculum, learners’ academic performances over the years, and some contextual information about the school and challenges it is facing. This information was used to make arguments and to provide detailed information in response to critical questions guiding the study. McCulloch (2004) argues that information from documentary sources is useful to support a particular argument.
94 4.8.3 Autobiographies
Autobiographies were reviewed in order to examine learners’ experiences as they were written by children themselves. Autobiographies provided detailed stories of refugee children’s lives which was very essential in making meaning of their experiences. McCulloch (2004) said
“autobiographies are often important as recollections of the individuals’ life, the struggles in which they have been involved and the changes they have witnessed” (p. 102). Information from autobiographies was corroborated with information from interviews and group discussions to support the experiences of refugee children in the study.
4.8.4 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
Focus group discussion (FGD) is a qualitative method that consists of about six to 12 people discussing a topic guided by a facilitator (Greenbaum, 1993). FGDs are conducted in a way that a researcher will ask questions and elicit responses through discussions (Creswell, 2008). FGDs have been chosen in this study because they allowed respondents to embark on an extensive discussion of a particular subject (refugee experiences) thereby enabling the researcher to obtain collective and in-depth information regarding learners’ experiences. FGDs can yield a vast amount of information within a short period of time (Mack et al., 2005).
As a result of FGDs, I was able to gather a wide range of information within a short period of time. FGDs are usually lively and very informative because participants can recall information, elaborate and corroborate some points and discuss critical issues. King and Horrocks (2010) claim that the very nature of being part of a group can engage participants. Group discussions allow participants to feel motivated to speak more about the topic than they could have done in a one-on-one interview. In FGDs, stated views can often be amplified, qualified, amended or contradicted when expressed as part of a group interview (King & Horrocks, 2010). They encourage greater candor and may be more acceptable to participants reluctant to take part in one-on-one interviews (Barbour, 2007).
All 16 learners selected to participate in the study took part in FGDs. There were two FGDs with learners. Each FGD had eight learners. Teachers helped me to divide learners into two groups in order to avoid systematic bias and friendship groups. Learners who were in FGDs were asked to
95 discuss their experiences prior to leaving Zimbabwe, on the way to South Africa and while they were in South Africa. Learners were probed about their experiences at the Chitate Street School of Refugees. The FGDs were recorded using an audio tape. All learners agreed to the recording of the discussions arguing that nobody would identify their voices in a group. This is unlike individual interviews where some learners did not want to be recorded claiming that they would be easily identified. A conducive environment for FGDs to be conducted was created. Roulston (2010) postulates that in a FGD, it is vital to facilitate an environment in which participants are comfortable to discuss sensitive topics. I created a pleasant environment (by prohibiting jeering and despising others) that made learners feel comfortable to freely discuss their diverse views about their experiences. I made a point that all learners had the platform to express themselves freely.