MAPPING THE RESEARCH JOURNEY - MY RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.2 Research design
4.2.4 Framing and locating my research sample
Sampling is about taking decisions about which people, settings and events should be part of a study. In other words, sampling involves “defining the population on which the research will focus” (Cohen et al., 2011, p.143). The population of this study was composed of Rwandan secondary school history teachers and some of them who fulfilled specific criteria were sampled to be part of the study. Generally, sampling strategies in qualitative research do not aim at utilising statistically representative samples for generalising conclusions (King & Horrocks, 2010).
Rather, “sampling proceeds according to the relevance of cases instead of their representativeness” (Flick, 2009, p.121). What is more important are the uniqueness and the idiographic nature of the groups and individuals in question. Thus, there are no clear rules on the size of the sample in qualitative research and the scope is informed by ‘fitness for purpose’ (Cohen et al., 2011; Patton, 2002; Strydom &
Delport, 2011). Hence, the uniqueness of my sample was determined by my study (Smith & Osborn, 2003).
This research used a small sample size. Qualitative studies involving a small number of participants, often less than 20, are common. This is mainly the practice where in- depth interviewing is the primary method of choice. In-depth interviewing aims at gathering data, which gives an authentic insight into people’s experiences and is generally employed in relation to sensitive topics. This is the case because a small sample enhances the participants and the researcher’s contact and thereby increases trustworthiness (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006). The concept of trustworthiness will be explained in detail further down.
For this study, I relied on purposive sampling techniques. In this type of sampling, the researcher selects the research participants based on their resourcefulness or competence related to the purpose and focus of the study. According to Cohen et al.
(2011, p.157), purposive sampling identifies “knowledgeable people’, i.e. those who have in-depth knowledge about particular issues” as it relates to their professional
152
roles, their power or their experiences. Purposive sampling is used for a diverse range of aims including the achievement of representativeness. However, the use of different categories did not aim to make comparison but rather to get unique cases with specific value to obtain rich data (Cohen et al., 2011). The bias inherent in purposive sampling as it relates to the choice of the research participants contributes to its efficiency because ‘knowledgeable people’ provide rich robust data. Another advantage of purposive sampling is that it is realistic as a strategy in using reasonable time frames and minimising costs by finding participants who have knowledge of the phenomenon in question. The challenge for purposive sampling is the possible voluntarily or involuntarily bias from the participants which can be lessened by asking appropriate questions and use of different methods which would provide more trustworthy data (Tongco, 2007).
In this study purposive sampling was used to select mainly seasoned history teachers from Rwandan secondary schools. This decision was motivated by the quest of obtaining rich thick data on the experiences of Rwandan history teachers to teach the Genocide and its related controversial issues. As a result this research made use of those teachers who participated in the design of the Rwandan history curricula or history textbooks such as the Teachers’ guide for secondary schools. It was assumed that teachers who participated in curriculum development or textbooks writing were selected because of their methodological competences in teaching history and their academic knowledge of the subject. The purposive sampling was mixed with the snowball sampling because the first participants recommended other teachers by following my instructions (Patton, 2002). In all, eleven participants were selected for participation in the study.
The research sample of eleven history teachers came from eleven secondary schools from all over Rwanda. To be selected the teachers needed at least one of the following traits:
specialised history teacher (at least with a diploma in history and education)
history teacher (without background in pedagogy)
153
genocide survivor working as a history teacher3
history teacher from a well-resourced school
history teacher from a poorly-resourced school
The choice of the above categories was motivated by expected data to get from the research participants. For instance, teaching approaches/methods used in teaching controversial issues differ from school to school depending on the resourcefulness of the institutions. I worked from the assumption that well equipped schools may use, amongst others, teaching aids, study tours and resource persons whereas poorly equipped schools cannot afford these. Clearly, the chosen participants fulfilled certain of the criteria as outlined. They were characterised by a ‘maximal variation’
as posited by Patton (2002) and Flick (2006). Thus, I used different categories to get rich data.
Once in the field it was difficult to find a genocide survivor working as a history teacher. Given the socio-political context in Rwanda, it was also quite challenging to look for a Tutsi history teacher because the use of social groups is officially discouraged. It was, however, easier to work with a history teacher who was a member of the Association des Elèves et Etudiants Rescapés du Génocide (Association for Genocide survivors students). Those who were identified by such means were no longer teaching but had taken-up managerial positions. I only managed to identify two former members of the mentioned Association and one took part in my research. In the course of my research one participant suggested that I should include in the sample a teacher from a perpetrator’s family. The question, which arose, was to know which type of perpetrator according to the categorisation done by Straus (2004) was to be approached. It was also unclear by means of which channel to trace such teachers. In my interaction with the participants we could not easily identify someone who was part of the direct perpetrators of the Genocide. I consequently abandoned this search. Rather, I thought that any participant who is not a genocide survivor or returnee from exile may express the views of any
3 In the case of Rwanda, the term genocide survivor is fluid. Here, it has to be understood as people who were targeted and escaped from the killings because of their Tutsi social identity (Nkusi, 2004). I do not refer to people who were targeted during the Genocide due to their opinions or their resistance to killings as explained in the law nº2/98 of 22/01/1998 instituting the Fonds d’Assistance aux Rescapés du Génocide (Kanzayire, 2004).
154
Rwandan indirectly affected by the Genocide. Finally, the research sample included a returnee from exile despite it not being planned for. This category consists of teachers who returned from exile, including people who came to Rwanda after the Genocide. In other words they were either born in exile or grew up outside of Rwanda. In general, my choice of participants was guided by qualitative studies’
philosophy which emphasises diversity while recruiting research participants (King &
Horrocks, 2010).
As earlier stated, sampling not only “focuses on the selection of people to be interviewed for example, or situations to be observed, but also the selection of sites in which such persons or situations can be expected to be found” (Flick, 2007, p.27).
In the case of this study the history of Rwanda, which includes topics on Genocide, is taught countrywide. Consequently, the chosen sites were not only from Kigali City but also from other provinces. Kigali City was chosen due to it being convenient (Patton, 2002). Since I reside in Kigali City, the capital, it was easy to access schools because the city hosts many schools serving its substantial population. This was the reason why most of the participants who were chosen for this study were from Kigali City. But, the idea of proximity and easy access was not the first motivation for the choice of the participants, other research participants were found outside of Kigali City. Participants also came from regions deeply affected by the Genocide against the Tutsi such as the Southern Province and regions which had fewer victims such as the Northern Province. Some teachers came from schools that were better resourced than others. It must also be pointed out that there is no clear link between poorly resourced schools and rurality. In rural areas there are also schools that are well-resourced because their owners are wealthy. For instance, religious communities own most of the well-resourced schools in rural areas. Therefore, the idea of variation pushed me to think about different sites. Consequently, sampling decisions were mostly taken on a concrete level rather than on an abstract one (Flick, 2009). During the research process, the selected participants were protected against harm by respecting ethical requirements as will be explained below.