4.4 Locating the study within Qualitative Case study design
4.4.3 Data generation methods
Crotty (1998, p. 3) defines methods as “techniques or procedures used to gather or analyse data related to some research question”. As indicated earlier in this chapter, this study was conducted using a case study approach. As a qualitative researcher who locates herself in the constructivist/interpretivist paradigm, I decided to use ‘data generation methods’ instead of
‘data collection methods .’ I believe that knowledge is not just collected but socially constructed. As Merriam (2009, p. 85) contends, while the term data collection is usually utilised, “[i]t should be kept in mind…that ‘the idea that we ‘collect’ data is a bit misleading.
Data are not ‘out there’ awaiting collection, like so many rubbish bags on the pavement”. This fits with the constructivist approaches that subscribe to the idea that “social reality is constructed rather than discovered” (Stake, 1995, p. 99). As a research instrument, I was also part of the data generated as I immersed myself in the field to make sense and meaning of my participants’ world of their leadership role in supporting teaching and learning in schools within their districts. In this process, I had to create meaning to explain district leadership roles and leadership practices of the DMT. Case study researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data generation procedures over a sustained period (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I generated data primarily through semi-structured interviews and additionally observations and reviews of documents provided by the DOs. Specifically, I conducted and audiotaped interviews and then transcribed them. I also reviewed documents and did observations to corroborate the interviews (see Appendix B). I then coded and categorised data for emergent themes.
4.4.3.1 Face-to-face individual interviews with the district officials
I did one-on-one interviews with the participants in which I asked questions and recorded each participant’s responses. Because my goal was to understand the meaning DOs make of their experiences, I felt that interviewing them would be necessary (Seidman, 2013). Furthermore, studying education district leadership necessitated that I use in-depth interviews because, according to Seidman (2013, p. 10):
89
[t]he primary way a researcher can investigate an educational organisation, institution, or process is through the experience of the individual people, the
“others” who make up the organisation or carry out the process. Social abstractions like “education” are best understood through the experiences of the individuals whose work and lives are the stuff upon which the abstractions are built…If the researcher’s goal, however, is to understand the meaning people involved in education make of their experience, then interviewing provides a necessary, if not always completely sufficient, avenue of inquiry.
Kvale and Brinkman (2009, p. 3) suggest that an interview “is a conversation that has a structure for purpose.” Interviews are also described as “a conversational partnership” (Rubin
& Rubin, as cited in Rossman & Rallis, 2012, p. 177). I found interviews suitable because, as a researcher, I sought to understand the participants' experiences. Hence, interviews gave me
“access to the context of people’s behaviour and thereby a way for [me] to understand the meaning of that behaviour” (Seidman, 2006, p. 10). As the primary data source of this study, a semi-structured, open-ended interview guide enabled me to obtain detailed responses of participants and explore the phenomenon under study in-depth to understand the participant’s perspective (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), see Appendix A.
Using semi-structured interviews, the DOs shared their insights and provided their reflections through the “open-ended, flexible, exploratory” questions I asked them on the phenomenon of the study (Merriam, 1998, p. 73). The flexibility of the interview guide enabled me to immediately follow up on ideas or issues that arose during the interview and for the co- construction for the DOs and me, developing knowledge of my role as a researcher (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Because interviewees generally talk in generalities, probing questions helped me elicit complete information, such as seeking clarity by requesting that the participants elaborate further on their ideas (Creswell, 2012). In that way, I ensured that I gathered as much information as possible to understand the participants'’ role in supporting teaching and learning. I audio-recorded the interviews with participants' approval to ensure accuracy (Creswell, 2012). I also took handwritten notes, which enabled me to track key points and highlight ideas of particular interest during the interviews. I conducted interviews in the offices of the participants. The duration of the interviews ranged from one hour to two hours. I conducted two sessions with each participant in one district. In the other district, I could only
90
do one session with the officials except for the district director, who was available for the second session.
4.4.3.2 Document reviews
To supplement semi-structured interviews, I used document reviews as a method of data generation to clarify or corroborate participants’ accounts (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Yin (2014, p. 107) supports this assertion by positing that “the use of documents is to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources.” Using document reviews assisted in the data analysis to corroborate or contradict interview data. Yin (2014) provides the advantages of using documents. Documents are unobtrusive and not retrospective. They are also specific on the details of the event and are broad, covering a “long span of time, many events, and many settings” (Yin, 2014, p. 106). Documents may include public records, personal papers, visual documents, and physical materials and artefacts (Merriam, 2009; Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Based on what emerged during the interviews, I then required these documents to corroborate the interviews. I examined the education district organisational documents, including district policies, district profiles, strategic plans, reports, agendas and minutes of the district management meetings, professional development programmes for teachers and principals. I also reviewed district circulars, agendas, and presentations for district accountability and support sessions with school principals, deputy principals, and Heads of Departments (HODs).
Agendas of stakeholders’ meetings and memos were also reviewed. I utilised the data from these documents to find links with semi-structured interview data.
4.4.3.3 Field Observations
Based on what emerged from the interviews with the DOs, I subsequently arranged for observations of principals’ accountability session meetings and support sessions for principals and deputy principals and was able to attend two accountability sessions in one district. As mentioned earlier, the other district director moved, and it was difficult to meet with the current district director. These accountability sessions occurred once a term and were based on all learners' performance across all grades. Patton (2002) argues that observations help the researcher understand the context where people interact and other details that may not present themselves in the interviews. In these sessions, I was a “nonparticipant or observer as a participant… an outsider to the group under study, watching and taking field notes…without
91
direct involvement with activity or people” by recording activities including descriptions and interpretations of the observations (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 168). This ensured that I carefully documented the activities and events in a social context without interfering with the proceedings. Furthermore, while waiting for the participants, I had the opportunity of studying the context and take notes.