research is analysed at a collective level through the use of a questionnaire as well as at an individual level in the semi-structured interviews (Wellington, 2004: p. 23 – 25; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006:
p. 374).
Reliability entails the ability of a researcher to replicate the constraints of this particular study and achieve a similar, of not identical outcome. However, as this is an ethnographic study embedded in the interpretivist paradigm, the possibility of this study being replicated and receiving the same result is unlikely. As with all interpretivist studies, there is a margin of subjectivity from the researcher and an understanding that when one is researching matters pertaining to responses from individuals, that replicating such a study would produce exactly the same results (Wellington, 2004:
p. 31-32; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006: p. 183-185).
situations. Within this study, the aim of employing quantitative research in the first phase was to determine that state of inclusive education in the schools studied as well as the degree to which the participants had been exposed to some form of professional development pertaining specifically to inclusive education. The aim of this phase was also to determine which barriers to learning teachers are au fait with, and specifically which learning disabilities they are comfortable with in order to identify specific target areas for professional development programmes later on in the study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006: p. 12-13).
3.3.1.1. Data collection techniques
The data for this phase of the research was collected through use of a questionnaire. A questionnaire was employed as a means to gather the vast quantity of data required in an efficient a manner as possible. The added advantage of using a questionnaire is that it ensured the anonymity of the respondent (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006: p.194).
The initial questionnaire was designed after a review of literature on the elements that are considered necessary in order to classify the degree of inclusivity present within a school. The first 25 questions of the questionnaire pertained specifically to the school environment as well as the educator and were adapted from the Index for Inclusion as developed by Booth (2000, cited in Potterton, Utley & Potterton, 2010). These questions were answered according to a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that the statement was completely false and 5 indicating that the statement was completely true (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006: p.197).
Question 3 was particularly interested in looking at the professional development of the respondents. For each statement the respondents were asked to answer a simple yes or no question indicating whether they had received training or not and this was followed up with a scaled answer indicating the quality of the training they received, in the event that they answered ‘yes’ to the earlier part of the question (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006: p.197-201).
Questions 4 and 5 were focused specifically on the learners that the respondents are in contact with and the nature of their barriers to learning. These questions consisted primarily of check-box type questions in which the respondents simply indicated the various barriers to learning or in the case of question 5, what support was available to these learners at the time of the study (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2006: p.194-201).
Question 6 was the only part of the questionnaire that asked questions in an open form in order to determine some details related to the respondents in terms of their teaching experience and qualifications (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006: p.194 – 201).
The initial questionnaire was drawn up and distributed for pilot testing within the researchers own school. This allowed me to determine from the answers whether the questions were clear and would provide me with an accurate image of the state of inclusive education in these schools and the level of professional development they have been exposed to. After minor adjustments to this questionnaire, it was distributed to the schools who had agreed to participate in this study. A sample of the final questionnaire is provided in Appendix D.
3.3.2. Qualitative research
Qualitative research respects that not all information in education can be collected in the manner expected of a quantitative approach as education is a social construct that cannot always be clearly defined and measured. Qualitative research assumes that the world is made up of multiple realities which are constructed through the opinions and experiences of the people who dwell in those realities. The researcher has a far more active role to play in qualitative research than in quantitative research as the researcher has to interact with the subject matter and is given the opportunity to take into account other factors that cannot necessarily be quantified, such as the atmosphere in a school. The second phase of this study was carried out in a qualitative fashion (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2006: p. 23-25; Walliman, 2011: p.174).
Qualitative research is often seen to be valuable in an education context as it aims to understand the relationships and social phenomena within a community from the perspective of the people within that community. Generally, the aim of qualitative research is to create solutions and theories that pertain specifically to a particular social context (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006: p. 12-13). The qualitative elements of this study have been conducted through interactive research methods, through the use of ethnographic research. Wellington (2004: p.45) succinctly describes the ethnographic approach as the situation in which “the researcher enters the social world of persons and groups being studied in an attempt to understand their shared meanings and taken-for-granted assumptions”. The aim of the qualitative phase of this research was to add descriptive detail to the quantitative data collected as well as to provide a form of validation for the data collected in phase one.
3.3.2.1. Data collection techniques
The qualitative data for this study was collected by means of an interview, which was guided by the use of a semi-structured interview schedule (Appendix E). This method allowed for open-response type questions to be used in order to gather data that could be ratified. By employing interviews to gather this data the researcher was able to determine the values, prejudices and feelings of the person being interviewed through analysing their body language.
The person in each school that was interviewed was known as the ‘key informant’ in gathering the necessary details. Wellington (2004: p. 74) defines key informants as being “individuals who possess special knowledge, status or communication skills and who are willing to share that knowledge with the researcher”.
Each of the interviews was recorded in conjunction with notes being taken during the interviews in order to ensure the accuracy as well as the quality of the evidence gathered. This allowed for verbatim transcriptions of these interviews to be drawn up for analysis purposes. This also contributed to the validity and trustworthiness of the data collected.
Reflexivity was also employed in order to contribute towards the validity of this study. Reflexivity in research is the acknowledgment of the role of the researcher in a study. In the words of Wellington (2004: p. 42), “being reflective involves thinking critically about the research process; how it was done and why, and how it could have been improved”. These issues will be recognised in the data analysis portion of this study.
The interview schedule used consisted of a variety of open and closed questions, of which some were flagged as being compulsory questions designed to clarify information that was important to the integrity of the study. In some questions, probing was used in order to get a better understanding of the complexities at work with the schools being studied. The majority of the probes employed were used in order to obtain further details on certain topics or in order to encourage the participant to elaborate further on a question. All care was taken to ensure that all probing was of a non-directive nature so as to prevent any bias creeping in from the researcher. Care was also taken in the actual interviews to ensure that the questions were not too leading or restrictive (Wellington, 2004: p. 79-82).