In this research data was collected in different phases. The questionnaires were given to the participants and collected a few weeks later. These questionnaires were completed in the absence of the researcher.
According to Cohen et al. (2007):
“…it enables the respondent to complete the questionnaire in private, to devote as much time as they wish to completion…and to avoid the potential threat or pressure to participate caused by the researcher’s presence.” (Cohen et al. 2007, p.344).
He goes on further to states that in doing this the researcher allows the participants to reveal sensitive matter and to give more real and valid information. According to Merriam (1998)
“reliability is problematic in the social sciences simply because human behaviour is never static.” (Merriem, 1998, p.145). Reliability in certain studies refers to the degree of consistency with which different observers assign the same category to data (Hammersley, 1992 in Silverman, 1993, p.145). This research contains data that is available to the readers in terms of video recordings and transcriptions so that categories and themes can be seen and recognised. The quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires is also supported by the qualitative data obtained from the interviews. This research was not compromised although I lectured to the participants. Reliability of data is significant in that the data was captured on video as well as the questionnaire.
According to Golafshani,2003; Stenbacka,2001; Lincoln & Guba, 1985 researchers state that the concept of validity is more applicable when conducting quantitative studies than qualitative studies, and in order to ensure that the research is rigorous and valid, appropriate
Analysis of the
questionnaires by the 31 participants who studied the ACEML program at NMMU and UKZN
Contributions made by the ACEML program towards teachers’
professionalism and how the teacher’s professional development was enhanced
Analysis of interviews with the 6
participants who studied the ACEML certificate at NMMU and UKZN
46
criteria must be used. Hence we note that reliability and validity are the focal point in any discussion of rigor in the research (Silverman, 1993) and validity is the key issue in qualitative research (Maxwell, 1992). Adler (1996) notes that in the use of qualitative research validity lies in the relationship between interpretation and evidence. This involves two types of validity namely, descriptive and interpretive validity and theoretical and explanatory validity (Maxwell, 1992). Nyabanyaba (2002) also asserts that validity concerns transparency.
This is reiterated by Graven (2006) that
“…it is important that researchers supply as far as possible the data from which various assertions are made. More importantly…must make available as far as possible, information relating to the context of the research and the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the researched.” (Graven 2006, p. 134).
Graven 2006, argues that issues related to concepts reliability a validity differ according to the
“…nature of the research conducted and the philosophical and ontological assumptions of the researcher. In some research, traditions achieving objectivity is crucial in judging the reliability or validity of the study. This assumes, firstly that objectivity is possible, and that secondly, that there is an empirical reality out there that can be objectively represented.” (Graven, 2006, p.133).
Adler states conversely that objectivity is a myth, and that research is infused with values, positions, choices and power relations. The interviews in this research, which formed a part of the qualitative phase was conducted personally by the researcher. This allowed for a “free and relaxed atmosphere for the interviewees.” (Thembela, 2012, p48). The venues used was familiar to the participants and the researcher. It can be seen that the researcher was the key instrument of the research and just not a tool. This relationship that existed between the researcher and the participant over the years reflects the community of practice according to Lave & Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998). Cohen et al. (2007) stated that “the involvement and in-depth responses of individuals secure a sufficient level of validity and reliability.”
(Cohen et al., 2007 p.134).
Cresswell and Miller (2000) input on the data is as follows “data are saturated to establish good themes or categories, and how the analysis of the data evolves into a persuasive narrative.” (Cresswell and Miller, 2000, p .125). However crucial information can be lost during the analysis phase through at different times, for example when the interviews are being transcribed. Hence we see a need for more than one method of data collection.
Researchers can choose the option of using the process of corroboration, which will in turn enhance the likelihood of others finding the research “credible and worthy of consideration.”
(Khan.M.B, 2008, p.40). According to Keys (1997) the process that is involved in corroboration is triangulation (mixing the methods). Cresswell and Miller (2000), define triangulation as “a validity procedure where researchers search for the convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study.”
(Cresswell and Miller, 2000, p.126). Cohen et al, (2007) describes triangulation “as the use of two or more methods of data collection in the study of some aspect of human behaviour.”
Hence a greater degree of confidence in the validity of the data can be observed, especially when multiple methods are being used and similar results are being yielded. Through a
47
process of triangulation one can check and verify data that is collected and also at the same time find trends that are followed as well as trends that do not exist, using theories of absurdum. Cohen et al. (2007) also states that “exclusive reliance on one method may bias or distort researcher’s views.” Golafstan (2003) emphasises that the method of triangulation of data “will lead to more valid, reliable and diverse construction of reality.” (Golafstan, 2003, p. 604).
Krefting (1991) spoke about the naturalistic criteria appropriate for judging the overall trustworthiness of qualitative study which are credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. The table below summarises the components with which to establish trustworthiness to research.
Table 3.3 Components of Trustworthiness
COMPONENT CRITERIA APPLICATION
1 Credibility Prolonged and varied field
experiences.
Interview techniques
Participants completing questionnaires as written responses
Participants completing interviews through audio visual-
DVD
Data analysis of questionnaires and interviews
2 Transferability Dense description Quotations from interviews.
Excell spreadsheets from questionnaire
3 Dependability Dependability audit Triangulation
Questionnaires
Transcripts from interviews DVD of interviews
4 Confirmability Confirmability audit Triangulation
Questionnaires and transcripts to be checked with cross reference to interviews on DVD (Krefting, 1991, p.219)
The information in the table above assures reliability in this mixed methods research and indicates the essential component of trustworthiness.
Merriam (2000) talks about the importance of reliability when she says “reliability lies in others concurring that given the data collected the results make sense, they are consistent and dependable.” (Merriam, 2000, p .27). The research contains a rich detailed description of the participant’s background. This is important to the reader to “make decisions about the applicability of the findings to other settings or similar contexts” (Cresswell and Miller, 2000, p.129). Guba (1981) also supports this idea of a ‘thick description’ by saying that this
48
information is “reasonable to suppose that tentative findings of Context A are also likely to hold to Context B” (Guba, 1981, p.81).