List of Tables
Chapter 5: Research Design and Methods
5.2.2 Philosophical worldviews
5-129
hypotheses. New theories may be generated or existing theories built upon during the research. In this study, the quantitative data revealed the number, types and disposition of domestic violence cases handled by CBPs, including the number of cases resolved through restorative justice and through the criminal justice process. Again, this secondary data sets the experience of women in a larger context.
5-130
committed to any one system of philosophy and the researcher draw liberally on both qualitative and quantitative assumptions during the research process. This helped the researcher to investigate whether restorative justice approaches work or not in cases of domestic violence. For GoldKuhl (2012:2),
“pragmatism is concerned with action and change and the interplay between knowledge and action. This makes it appropriate as a basis for research approaches that intervene in the world rather than merely observing it”.
Hence, the pragmatic worldview offers an opportunity to use different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis. This worldview is the overarching philosophical worldview in the research design for this study. Pragmatism facilitates an in-depth understanding of the DVA, and the work of CBPs and their CRJ approaches. The pragmatic worldview is appropriate for this kind of study as what is happening in practice may help create a theory or build upon existing theories to improve policy and the administration of justice for women in rural areas.
5.2.2.2 Epistemological orientations for pragmatism and interpretivism
According to GoldKuhl (2012:6), one of the principles of interpretive research is “concerned with the relationship between the investigator and practitioner during data gathering”. Interpretive research emphasises that “the researched subjects are interpreters and co-producers of meaningful data. This implies that empirical data gathering is a process of meanings that are socially constructed” by researchers and participants. The key goal of interpretive knowledge is to understand, while in pragmatism, constructive knowledge is emphasised. While pragmatism requires that knowledge should be useful for action and change, interpretivists claim that knowledge should be interesting in itself. GoldKuhl (2012:6) explains that
“methodologically, pragmatism is associated with inquiry as the main type of investigation. In interpretivism, the main type of investigation would be field study and data generation is conducted through interpretation”.
GoldKuhl (2012:12) captures the differences in epistemological orientation between pragmatism and interpretivism.
Table 5-1 Contrast between pragmatism and interpretivism
Pragmatism Interpretivism
Ontology Symbolic realism Constructivism
Empirical focus Action and change Beliefs (socially constructed cognition)
5-131
Type of knowledge Constructive knowledge Understanding
Role of knowledge Useful for action Interesting and informative
Type of investigation Inquiry Field study
Data generation Data through assessment and intervention
Data through interpretation Role of researcher Engaged in change Engaged in understanding Source: GoldKuhl (2012:12)
As shown in Table 5-1, GoldKuhl (2012:6), distinguishes elements of pragmatism and interpretivism for mixed methods research studies – i.e., action and design-oriented research. The pragmatic worldview helped the researcher to examine the views and perceptions of CBPs and victims of domestic violence in order to socially construct what aspects of restorative justice work, and under which circumstances it works or not.
Interpretivism helped the researcher to understand the underlying factors influencing the choices made by survivors of violence. Through the data collected from the participants, the researcher gained valuable knowledge and insight into their situation in accessing justice and together the researcher and participants co-created knowledge – such as procedures and processes used by CBPs in mediation. Preservation of the voices of the respondents through narrative adduced by this study substantiate the advocacy-participatory worldview.
5.2.2.3 Advocacy and participatory worldview
In this study, the respondents’ views hold to the philosophical assumptions of the advocacy/participatory approach. According to Creswell (2009:9), this worldview focuses on the “needs of groups and individuals in society that may be marginalised or disenfranchised. Advocacy research provides a voice for these groups or individuals, raising their consciousness or advancing an agenda for change to improve their lives”. This philosophy holds that research must include “an action agenda for reform that may change the lives of the research participants”. This worldview helped give voice to the paralegals and female victims of domestic violence. The advocacy and participatory worldview laid a foundation to capture the perceptions of CBPs of what is working in terms of their restorative justice approach, and the practical consequences of this approach. Victims of domestic violence were given space to articulate their justice needs and share their views on whether the restorative justice process on its own can provide the outcomes they desire to solve domestic violence, or if it needs to be combined with the formal court process.
5-132
The research adopted an action agenda by providing a voice for CBPs and raising awareness of the role they play in CRJ. The advocacy and participatory worldview provided a platform for participants to articulate what works at grassroots level and what changes can be introduced in the practice of restorative justice. It will also assist the CBPs to advance an action agenda for recognition of the role they play in restorative justice in KZN rural communities, which is not the case at present.
In this study a case study strategy facilitated execution of the research design guided by the philosophical worldviews of pragmatism and advocacy-participatory.
5.3 Case Study Strategy
Creswell (2009:11) notes that, after selecting an appropriate design for the study, the researcher needs to decide on a research strategy within the chosen design. The primary strategy used in this study was the case study. In the four case studies, qualitative research is supported by descriptive quantitative data. According to Baxter and Jack (2008:556), “a case study is an excellent opportunity to gain deep insight into a case. It enables the researcher to gather data from a variety of sources and to triangulate data to illuminate the case”.
Haverland and Yanow (2012:12) note that, case study research is the primary strategy in public administration research. According to Yin (2009:4), a case study is used in “many situations, to contribute to our knowledge of individual groups”. Yin adds that a “case study allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristic of real-life events”, to understand a real-life phenomenon in depth, or to describe an intervention and the real-life context in which the intervention occurred (Yin, 2009:18 and 20).
Scholars note that there are various definitions of a case study. According to Haverland and Yanow (2012:12), in interpretive research, a case study is often used as a synonym for ‘site’ or ‘setting’; the bounded location in which the research is conducted that is considered to have potential to illustrate the focus of the researcher’s interest. Creswell (2009: 13) defines “a case study as a strategy used by a researcher to explore a programme, event, activity, process, or one or more individuals in depth”. Yin (2009:16) notes that “a case study is an empirical inquiry that:
Investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and holistically within its real-life context, especially when
The boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.”
Yin (2009:18) notes that, while certain features of the case study strategy are not critical in defining the strategy, they may be considered variations within case study research and also provide answers to common
5-133
questions. Single and multiple case studies are variants of case study designs. According to Baxter and Jack (2008:545), a case study is used when (a) the focus of the study is to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions; (b) when one cannot manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study; (c) when one wants to cover contextual conditions because one believes they are relevant to the phenomena under study; or (d) when the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context. Likewise, Yin (2009:10) contends that if one needs to know ‘how’ or ‘why’ a programme worked, one would lean towards a case study or a field experiment. In this case study, the researcher is interested in establishing whether, and if so, ‘how’ and
‘why’ the CRJ approach adopted by CBPs has worked in cases of domestic violence.
Scholars suggest a number of factors to consider when adopting a case study strategy (Yin, 2009:19, 27;
Baxter and Jack,(2008:546, 547, 550). Yin (2009:19) indicates that case study research may go beyond
‘qualitative research’ and use a mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Moreover, Yin (2009:27) identifies “five important components of case study research, which are a study’s questions, propositions if any, units of analysis, the logic linking the data to the propositions and the criteria for interpreting the findings”. Baxter and Jack (2008:546) suggest that when considering what one’s research question will be, one must also consider what the case is (the unit of analysis). The authors suggest that, asking the following questions can help to determine what one’s case is: do I want to ‘analyse’ the individual? Do I want to
‘analyse’ a program? Do I want to ‘analyse’ the process? Do I want to ‘analyse’ different organisations?
Baxter and Jack (2008:547) maintain that once one has “determined that the research question is best answered using a case study and the case and its boundaries have been determined; one must consider what type of case study will be conducted”. The selection of a specific type of case study design is guided by the overall study purpose. The question to be asked is: are you looking to describe a case, explore a case, or compare cases? The different “types of case studies include explanatory, exploratory, descriptive, multiple case studies, intrinsic, instrumental, and collective” (Baxter and Jack, 2008:547). Explaining each type is beyond the scope of this study. This study is a descriptive, exploratory and to a degree an explanatory case study.
Baxter and Jack (2008:547) observe that it is important that after “identifying the ‘case’ and the specific
‘type’ of case study to be conducted, a researcher must consider if it is prudent to conduct a single case study or if better understanding of the phenomenon will be gained through conducting a multiple case study”.
Multiple cases can then draw a single set of “cross-case conclusions” (Yin, 2009:20). A multiple case study allows a researcher to analyse within each setting and across settings. Yin (2009:59, 60) explains that
“individual cases within multiple case study designs may be either holistic or embedded. When an embedded design is used, each individual case study may include the collection and analysis of quantitative data,
5-134
including the use of surveys within each case”. The case study is embedded if it involves more than one unit of analysis (Yin, 2009:50) and/or a mixed research design to demonstrate a more “holistic data collection strategy for studying the main case but then calls upon other quantitative techniques to collect data about embedded units of analysis, in this situation, different research methods are embedded within your case study” (Yin, 2009:63). In this study, quantitative information such as descriptive statistics of domestic violence cases handled by CBPs were embedded in the qualitative component to help address the research questions, and achieve the research objectives (Yin 2009:59). A descriptive, exploratory and to a lesser degree, explanatory multiple case study strategy was adopted. The study employed an embedded multiple case study strategy applying several units of analysis, namely, CBPs and their clients as stakeholder segments which are the primary units of analysis embedded in a CAO as an organisational unit of analysis.
In other words, on the one hand quantitative data collection methods were embedded in the qualitative approach. On the other hand stakeholder segments as units of analysis were embedded in the CAO as organisational unit of analysis.
Baxter and Jack (2008:550) explain that multiple case studies examine several “cases in order to understand the similarities and differences within and between the cases”. The authors contend that the goal of the case study should be to replicate the study across cases and draw comparisons. Baxter and Jack (2008:550) argue that “it is important that the cases are chosen carefully so that the researcher can predict the results across cases, or predict contrasting results based on a theory”. The multiple case studies are presented in chapters 6 to 9 and the evidence shows replication logic (Yin, 2009:56).
This study is concerned with ‘why’ women who are victims of domestic violence choose the CRJ approach administered by CBPs, and ‘how’ the informal approach of CRJ is applied by CBPs. The purpose of the study is to explore CBPs’ restorative justice approach in cases of domestic violence. The analytical technique used to link the data to the study proposition is cross-case analysis. The study as whole uses a multiple case design and socio-legal approach to provide an in-depth understanding of CBPs’ work with victims of domestic violence and the CRJ approach used by CBPs and CAOs (Yin, 2009:53).
The case study research sites are located at Bulwer, Ixopo, Madadeni, and New Hanover. The multiple case studies allowed for comparison and contrast of the experiences and perceptions of each CAO. This allowed the researcher to compare different practices and procedures used by CBPs in resolving similar cases of domestic violence, and to consider how the restorative approaches vary between each office and the paralegals themselves. These four research sites were selected in terms of their geographical location, setting and approach to handling cases of domestic violence cases. The geographical spread is in terms of direction
5-135
in relation to Pietermaritzburg: New Hanover is in the Midlands, close to Pietermaritzburg, Ixopo is in the south, Bulwer is to the east and Madadeni is to the north of Pietermaritzburg. The location relates to where the office is based or located: the New Hanover and Ixopo CAOs are based at the local magistrate’s court, while the Madadeni and Bulwer CAOs are based at police stations. The aim is to consider how the restorative approaches vary between the sites located at the police station and those located at the magistrate’s court.
The setting is in terms of the type of area. Farms surround New Hanover and Ixopo with a small area occupied by traditional villages. Bulwer is a rural town surrounded by several villages and farms, while a township surrounds Madadeni, although it also serves traditional villages. The case studies were selected in order to access community members from these areas, obtain diverse views and to establish whether the area participants come from influences their views and experiences. Furthermore, the cases were selected because the embedded units of analysis could provide insight and an opportunity to understand the research problem better.
According to Yin (2009:53), “evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust”. Baxter and Jack (2008:550) point out that “overall, the evidence generated by this type of study is considered robust and reliable, but it can also be extremely time consuming and expensive”. The same data collection methods were employed across all four case studies in alignment with replication logic (Yin, 2009:60).
5.4 Research Sampling
Research in remote rural areas has many practical constraints; the choice of sampling method was informed by the constraints discussed below.
There are different sampling techniques, not all of which are discussed here. The study employed a two- pronged sampling strategy. One component was based upon replication logic regarding the selection of cases (Yin, 2009:60). The other component involved sampling techniques relative to study participants within each case selected. In replication logic cases are carefully chosen so that the researcher can predict similar results under the circumstances which involves literal as opposed to theoretical replication and generally includes two or three cases (Yin 2009:54). The four CAOs studied for this thesis were carefully selected and it was predicted that, more often than not, CBPs use CRJ to handle domestic violence cases and generate successful results that meet individual needs of female victims of domestic violence in rural areas.
5-136
As to sampling techniques for study participants in the qualitative aspect of this study, this study used (1) purposive sampling (2) snowball sampling and (3) convenience sampling.
According to Richie et al (2003:78-79), purposive sampling is “precisely what the name suggests. Members of a sample are chosen with a purpose”. Richie et al (2003:78-79) note that the sample units are chosen because they have certain characteristics which the researcher wants to explore “in order to gain a deeper understanding of the subject of the study”. This sample enables the researcher to cover all the key elements relevant to the study and include some diversity. Richie et al (2003:79) notes that some scholars refer to this as judgement or criterion sampling but the term ‘purposive sampling’ is commonly used in the literature.
As to snowball sampling, Richie et al (2003:94) note that it is also called chain sampling; these terms are used to describe an approach where people who have been interviewed for the study identify other participants. This is relevant when the study involves a sensitive subject such as domestic violence.
“Snowball sampling relies on referrals; one participant recruits others. This can help researchers to capitalise on informal networks that might be difficult to access, such as victims of domestic violence” (Hancock, 2007:22). This process can also be characterised as convenience sampling. The paralegals who participated in the study helped to identify focus group participants (who had been involved in the cases that are the subject of the study). However, Richie et al (2003:94) caution that because sample members are generated by people who are also involved in the study, “there is danger that the diversity of the sample frame is compromised”.
Convenience and purposive sampling were used in selection of paralegals and focus group participants based upon those who were available and likely to participate in the study. Richie et al (2003:81) argue that convenience sampling is the most common form of qualitative sampling because it lacks any clear sampling strategy. Yin (2009:85) observes that when a researcher is “interviewing key persons, you must cater to the interviewee’s schedule and availability, not your own”. In this study the criteria for participation were discussed with the paralegals who in turn provided an overview of the study to potential focus group participants. Due to the sensitive nature of domestic violence, personal information such as age, socio- economic background, parental status, and ethnicity was not solicited. In purposive sampling, individuals are selected because they have experienced the central problem under investigation (Creswell, 2009:218).The study targeted women participants only because it focuses on domestic violence perpetrated against women by men. Men will be the subject of another study. On receipt of ethical clearance, pre-interviews were conducted with the focus group participants to review the research project, answer any questions regarding the study and for them to sign the consent form.
5-137
According to Hancock et al (2007:22) and Finch and Lewis (2003:171), the recommended size of a focus group is six to ten people and “each focus group should have some characteristics in common which are important to the topic under investigation. The group may have experienced a similar problem or have received similar treatment. They might know or not know one another”. Ritchie, Lewis and Elam (2003:83) explain that the reason why qualitative samples are small is because very little evidence is obtained from additional field work; furthermore the phenomenon needs to “appear once to be part of the analytical map”.
Therefore, increasing the sample size does not contribute new evidence. The type of information produced by a qualitative study is usually rich in detail; the researcher does not necessary need to conduct further field work. Richie et al (2003:84) observe that it would not be possible to conduct “hundreds of interviews, observations or focus groups unless the researcher intends to spend several years doing so”.
5.5 Data Collection Methods
According to Lewis (2003:56), the basic consideration in deciding which research design is appropriate for a study is whether or not the required data exist, are available and accessible. Other questions to consider are whether data sought will “shed more light on the research topic”; and “the feasibility from the point of view of both the researcher and participants” of carrying out in-depth interviews or focus groups.
In terms of data collection, mixed methods research is classified according to four major factors: (1) timing, (2) the weighting or priority given to quantitative and qualitative research, (3) mixing of quantitative and qualitative data, and (3) a theoretical or conceptual perspective that guides the study. In terms of timing, Creswell (2009:206) notes that the researcher needs to consider the timing of their qualitative and quantitative data collection; whether it will be in phases, i.e., sequential or concurrent, or transformative in which the researcher uses a theoretical lens as an overarching perspective (Creswell, 2009:15). Creswell explains that when the data are collected sequentially, either the qualitative or the quantitative data come first. In concurrent collection, the qualitative and quantitative data are gathered at the same time. The transformative lens uses a data collection method that involves a sequential or a concurrent approach.
The second factor is the weighting or priority given to the quantitative or qualitative research. A researcher may sometimes intentionally use one form of data in a supportive role. The weight is placed on the first phase. The quantitative data and results assist the interpretation of the qualitative findings (Creswell, 2009:211). The third factor is mixing qualitative and quantitative data. According to Creswell (2009:208), the researcher’s primary aim might be to collect one form of data with the other form providing supportive information. In this study the secondary database (quantitative) which was collected after the qualitative