3.1. Research Concerns 59
3.1.6. Participant Selection
As discussed above, it was decided to have interviews with teachers only, as the study would be too large, if other respondents such as learners and principals were included as well.
Research of these last two population groups could in fact be separate studies in themselves (e.g. Penny et. al. 1992). A relatively small sample was desired, so as to facilitate in-depth investigation. A minimum of two teachers from each school would have been sufficient. I had hoped that their differences, i.e.:
• different race groups,
• different sexes,
• different ages,
• a wide spectrum of experience within the teaching field (namely 'old' versus. 'new' teachers)
• different subjects and
• different grades.
would be more representative and would produce a diverse range of opinions.
The respondents were not given any form of remuneration for data or their participation. I had never had personal contact with the any of the teachers interviewed prior to the actual interviews. Powney& Watts (1987) encourage researchers not to have a personal relationship with the interviewees. Only two teachers had been in the one of the settings when I was a learner, but had not taught me at all and were not interviewed. One of the interviewees has been a learner at one of the schools when I was a learner there as well. I however did not have any contact with her during this time.
As a novice researcher, I thought that the ideal sample was important and within my powers of control. My notions of what the ideal sample entailed were however negated by the practicalities in the field. I had intended to have teachers freely volunteer their services. This however did not occur, as teachers:were selected by their superiors (at Hamilton High and Mohammed High) or contemporaries (at Thandeka) in some instances. To elucidate on the method used to choose respondents, I describe in detail the selection at the various schools.
Schools Number of Selection Process Respondents
Hamilton 2 Selected by principal
Mohammed High 3 Selected by principal / deputy if 'free'
Thandeka 3 One volunteer. Others selected by network sampling.
Saint Cyprian's 4 All volunteered
Table 3.2. Selection of Respondents
At Hamilton High the principal informed the staff, during a staff meeting, that a research endeavour was to occur at their school. They were given the details of what the study aimed to investigate, but he forgot to ask for volunteers. As a result of this oversight, on the morning of the interviews he commandeered - probably with my requirements in mind - a young, female Science teacher, who had begun teaching a few years ago, as well as a male, content subject teacher, who had 10 years of teaching experience. When each was asked, about this sudden change to their day, their reply was that they were used to 'surprises'. During the introductory patter, when the content subject teacher asked ifhe would have volunteered if given the choice, his reply was a firm 'no'. He later revealed that the principal probably forgot to ask for volunteers as he has quite a lot on his plate. (In addition to managing the school and attending meetings he also has to teach 22 periods a week). Although I would have liked to have discussed the issue with the principal I was unable to, as he was unavailable after the interviews were conducted and so the issue was left unbroached.
At Mohammed High, the principal reluctantly gave his permission, as he feared that interviews would rob teachers of their most valuable resource, i.e. time. He willingly offered his own services in exchange for those of his teachers. In spite of his concern, he agreed to give me access to his teachers. During selection, confusion reigned. On the day arranged for the interviews, when I arrived at the school, the principal was late. The deputy-principal (who was called to action, in the light of the absent principal) had not been informed by the principal of my reason for being at the school, so I had to explain my purpose again. Although the principal
had promised to arrange that I speak to a biology teacher, this teacher proved to be unavailable on the day. The deputy managed to 'find' me a teacher who happened to be 'free'. This was how the participants were selected at this school. When the principal became available this sampling technique of choosing teachers who were invigilating or who had a free period continued. Interestingly, I had met a young, male English teacher, in the waiting room, (whilst waiting for the principal to arrive) who had taught for 10 years and who was willing to be interviewed. This teacher was not asked by either the principal or the deputy-principal to participate in the study.
At Thandeka, the principal gave me freedom to approach his teachers. He had however not infonned his staff about the research endeavour. Fortunately, the head of one of the language departments approached me and volunteered her services. LeCompte and Priessle (1993) were of the opinion that the people who are drawn towards researchers and who volunteer their infonnation may be atypical of the group being investigated. This teacher was one of the few who did not belong to the same race group as the majority of the learners - a possibility presenting interesting issues. At this school network sampling occurred, as a result of the above head's organisation. LeCompte & Preissle (1993:73) describe network sampling as "a strategy in which each successive participant or group is named by a preceding group or individual".
In only one out of the four schools (i.e. Saint Cyprian's), did teachers volunteer to participate in the study and then I decided to include all respondents.
Inthe end the sample consisted of twelve participants. Of these four were involved in managerial and administrative tasks in an official capacity.
The criterion of convenience (which refers to the easiest selection of cases under given
circumstances), as well as network sampling (where teachers referred the researcher to others) was used in the selection of my participants.
Please see Table 3.3 below, which gives additional infonnation regarding each teacher, who was included in the sample.
School's Gender Age Home Position Race Subject Grades Yrs
Name Lang. Taught teaching
'.
Hamilton M Young E Teacher I Natural 10 -12 10
Science
F Young A Teacher I Commerce 10 - 12 ±5
F Young E Teacher I Language 8 5
Mohammed
High: F Young Teacher I Language 8, 11 7
F Middle E Teacher I Language 12 10
-aged
Thandeka F Middle E ROD I Language 8 Unknown
-aged
F Middle Z RO.D B Commerce Unknown Unknown
-aged Middle
M -aged Z H.O.D. B Science 8,9 6
F Middle E Teacher W Commerce 10-12 13
Saint -aged
Cyprian's
M Young E Teacher W Woodwork 7-12 25
M Young E Teacher I Science 9 - 12 4
Natural Or. 12
M Middle E Teacher W Science, & 26
-aged Management Art 10,11,12
Table 3.3. Respondent Infonnation
Key: I
=
IndianB=Black W=White