MAPPING THE METHODOLOGY
3.5 Mapping the research design of the study
3.5.1 Mapping gaining of access
Gaining access to each node of the study meant dealing with various gatekeepers, for example KwaZulu-Natal DoE, Life Sciences subject advisors, and mentors. According to Neuman (2000, p. 52), a gatekeeper is “someone with formal and informal authority to control access to a site”. Formal or official permission is when the gatekeepers in a given set-up grant permission to conduct research in a particular organisation. Informal or social permission occurs when participants accord the researcher the necessary rapport to
For the DoE and schools nodes, written permission was sought and obtained from the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) DoE to conduct this study in the Phoenix North region (see Appendix A, Annexure A3, p. 143 for letter of permission to conduct research).
Permission was also obtained from the subject advisor to observe mediation of the NCS- FET Life Sciences Policy document. Mediation of policy was observed for its full duration, i.e. 4.5 days. The Phoenix North region was purposively selected as it has schools in its jurisdiction that belonged to previous ex-departments of education, namely the House of Delegates (ex-HoD, which controlled Indian education prior to democracy), the House of Assembly (ex-HoA, which controlled White education), and the Department of Education and Training (ex-DET, which controlled African education). A few independent schools within the region attend meetings at the Phoenix District Office and subscribe to the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Department’s teaching and assessment requirements. The schools in the Phoenix North region have diverse infrastructures and resources, but all obtain a pass rate above the national norm of 78% (Moonsamy, 2008).
School principals and Life Sciences teachers were consulted to observe implementation of policy at schools. Principals gave me access to their schools and the Life Sciences teachers were willing to participate in this study. Teachers were purposively selected and had to be engaged with implementation of the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy.
At the outset I declare having a close working relationship with the Life Sciences teachers in the Phoenix North region spanning over 20 years. My interaction with the teachers was multi-layered: they engaged with me as a moderator of their Grade 12 CASS portfolio and as a regional examiner and moderator for Biology, Physical Science and Life Sciences papers. Many of the Life Sciences teachers in this region participated in my Masters study. I have always enjoyed a supportive relationship with my Life Science colleagues. I also declare that I am known to the Phoenix North schools’
management and the Superintendent of Education Management. While declaring my position, it is crucial to remember that the role of the enquirer in this study is guided by the theoretical framework, ANT.
To conduct teacher observations at a prestigious independent school proved to be an unusual experience for someone from the State schools. The Life Sciences teacher, Meg (pseudonym), who regularly attends meetings at the Phoenix District Office, allowed me access to her Grade 11 and Grade 12 Life Sciences lessons. She was keen to be a part of the study. Meg was mentored by me when she was a student teacher. She also volunteered to make arrangements for me to observe her Life Sciences colleague RB’s Grade 10 Life Sciences lesson. RB is also the head of department at Meg’s school.
When approached, RB advised Meg that my observing their lessons was “not a good idea”; she felt it could have serious implications for their school with regard to how the curriculum is enacted and implemented. It would allow an outsider to know what goes on in their lessons and to have access to their teaching records. She did not want their school to be in the “spotlight”. Neither did RB want the DoE to get a glimpse of their enactment of the curriculum through this study. RB also reminded Meg that they have very high- profile students (children of Ministers of Parliament) at their school - my observations of their lessons could have safety implications for their learners. Meg apologised profusely for not being able to carry out her initial promise, and indicated that she had to abide by RB’s decision since RB was her superior. She also explained that it was RB who had secured her a job at this independent school. I informed Meg that I respected their decision, and enquired whether I could use this personal communication between us as data. Meg supported this decision.
Gaining access to industry for the main study posed a problem. Five of the six industries that participated in the preliminary study did not want to participate in the second stage of the research. These five industries indicated that they were concerned with issues of equity in respect of race and gender raised in question 7 of the preliminary study questionnaire (see Appendix B, Annexure B8, p. 175). They were concerned about the potential impact of the findings of this research on their company’s reputation.
A pharmaceutical site in the North Durban region was the only industry willing to participate in the second stage of the research. This industry was used as a generative example to understand how policy is constructed and which SKAV are constituted during mediation of workplace learning in NTEW. This company was started by two brothers who see their company as an agent of social change. They offer opportunities to NTEW to get a South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA)-recognised qualification. The brothers share a common vision - to revolutionise the pharmaceutical world by providing affordable and accessible healthcare services. They also wanted to offer healthcare counselling and support to their clients at their retail pharmacies. It was their vision to establish a disease management centre where their clients could be assisted in improving compliance and be given private counselling and advice.
An important lesson of this study is that access is an iterative process and not a once-only decision. Negotiating my way past the gatekeepers was only the start of a long process of access to people and information which was to last throughout the study. Upon reflection, access is seen as a deeper process of building relationships during data constitution.
At the industry node I was confronted with an ethical and moral dilemma. As a methodological deployment, I had originally thought of seeking employment with the pharmaceutical industry. This was to engage in covert research in order to follow and observe the NTEW with regard to enactment, performance and enrolment of SKAV.
Under the guise of a “worker” in the pharmaceutical industry, I would not write about how my skills were being shaped, but the experience would allow me to see how “other workers” have their skills shaped, reproduced and translated. My presence as a “worker”
was for methodological deployment and purposes and not to use the experience for analytical purposes. The pharmaceutical industry had given me permission to embark on covert research. While an embedded way of obtaining data was considered initially, moral and ethical dilemmas concerning covert research preoccupied me.
To deal with the situation, I drew on the work of scholars such as Henning, Van Rensburg and Smith (2004), Bulmer (1980), De Vos, Strydom, Fouche and Delport
(2005) and Cohen and Manion (2002). I pondered on the theoretical underpinning of this study. These scholars argue that researchers have a moral obligation to respect and protect those involved in or affected by their research. They explain that ethical concerns in educational research are often complex and subtle, and can sometimes place the researcher in a moral predicament that may be difficult to resolve. The study was informed by what these scholars refer to as the “moral responsibility” of a qualitative researcher. They advise a researcher to build rapport with participants on the basis of trust and free and open communication. I realised that engaging in covert research would negate my moral responsibility as a researcher and challenge the methodological rigor of the study.
Covert research, according to Bulmer (1980), flouts the principle of informed consent.
Bulmer (1980) alluded to covert research methods as the theft of data from unsuspecting victims. The actors are construed as naïve individuals. The element of trust would be absent from this type of relationship. I considered trust to be a desirable quality when engaging in research that depends upon any kind of co-operation. I considered damaging or destroying a trustworthy relationship to be a foolish venture. I realised that covert research methods might damage the behaviour or interests of the subjects by drawing attention to what they preferred to remain unnoticed. Whether the effects of research are favourable to its subjects or unfavourable, the implications of publication are such that subjects are entitled to have control (Bulmer, 1980). Covert research methods deprive participants of such control.
Had I embarked on covert research, I would have brought the issue of morality and power dynamics between the participants and the enquirer to the fore. ANT opposes the assumption that the enquirer is dealing with naïve actors who need emancipation (Latour, 2005). As the ethical dilemma continued to perplex me, I was confronted with the following questions: Was I the “outsider” trying to be an “insider” by invading their space and lives, gaining information that would benefit me? Would they see me as a spy employed by management or as someone who could create an awareness of the need to
node of the study the rapport with research participants would be built under false pretences. Such tacit mistrust could not elicit open and free communication (Henning, Van Rensburg & Smith, 2004). The moral and ethical dilemmas that confronted me led me to decide not to embark on covert research at the industry node of the study. I informed the human resources personnel of my decision, and subsequently requested permission to conduct research within the pharmaceutical industry.