3.1. Research Concerns 59
3.2.1. Pilot Study 81
3.2. DATA COLLECTION
confidentiality, which I found resulted in teachers being willing to reveal more. Denzin &
Lincoln (ibid.) state that rapport can result in more informed research. Introductory chitchat and informing teachers that their revelations would be treated confidentially assisted with creating positive rapport. I found that a casual attitude, though professional stance, a pleasant countenance, non-technical use of language, a neutral tone, displaying inter~st in their stories told, being supportive, and empathic added to greater rapport (Lofland, 1971 in LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993).
Although it was my intention that all respondents give consent to participation, this did not happen in all cases. In some instances, I felt that teachers assented to the situation that they found themselves in, and that this assenting did not necessarily imply consenting. The dictionary definition of these terms, will clarify what I mean. Assenting implies compliance, whilst consenting, implies "voluntary acceptance or allowance of what is planned by another"
(Universal Dictionary, 1986:102~ 339). To illustrate this point, a female language teacher at Mohammed High wanted to know if her principal of her school would "need to sign anything"
that she mentioned in her interview, indicating not only that he may be privy to her revelations, but that he may not sign, if he did not approve of her opinions. The possible consequences of this could no doubt be that she could invite trouble if her views were unpopular or not politically correct, and that her views would not being publicised.
Gaining trust was essential both, during the interviews and after, as the teachers would have to trust that I would indeed protect them after the interview. I found that teachers were willing to give me information and trusted me, as can be proven by 'titbits' of information that were told to me in secret. In some cases it wasrequested that I not reveal confidences, which led me to ask myself where my responsibilities lay, i.e. with the research endeavour and the public's right to know, or with the respondents? Clandinin & Connelly (in Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) agree with LeCompte & Preissle (1993:109) that our first responsibility as researchers is towards participants.
Responsibility and loyalty are issues made especially crucial by the personal, face-to-face nature of much qualitative research. The ethical and moral question is to whom a researcher owes primary loyalty. Whose interests predominate in any conflict? Those of the researcher?
The scientific community? The public? Inthe code of conduct adopted in 1971,the American Anthropological Association specified the principle that an ethnographer's first loyalty should be to those studied.
Maintaining respondent anonymity was crucial, whilst simultaneously revealing vital information that they discussed. Striking the balance between these two was not an easy task, especially as I feared reprisals if teachers were identified as having stated a contrary opinion.
Indeed, Denzin& Lincoln, (1998:60) call trust a "fragile" thing, which can be broken during and after the interviews. Part of the ethical obligation of the qualitative researcher, according to Denzin & Lincoln, (1998) is to protect the respondents from harm. Itis my sincere hope that I have this - (Carter & Delamont, 1996) that I have indeed protected teachers from being identified and treated their revelations in a manner that they would approve of.
Anyone who agrees to be interviewed takes a risk. For example, they may expose their ignorance, prejudice or intolerance" (Powney & Watts, 1987:9). Besides rapport and trust Schatzman and Strauss (1973, in LeCompte and Preissle, 1993:177) identified five other conditions, which influenced the outcome ofInterviews. They were:
(I) Duration, or how long a session lasts; (2) number, or how many separate sessions are required to complete the interview process; (3) setting, or location for the interview; (4) identity of how many are present at a session; and (5) respondent styles, or ways of communicating characteristics of the groups to be interviewed.
Teachers were only interviewed once. These interviews varied from 10 minutes to approximately 2 hours. The venues chosen depended on the resources of the school and time of the interview. For most part interviews occurred within classrooms. Some occurred in staffrooms with staff present, others in either empty classrooms or classes full of learners, computer rooms, a photocopy room (where part of an interview was performed), and in one school in a conference room. Some of the interviews took place in more than one setting. All of the interviews occurred at the schools; however, the teachers were offered the choice of another venue if they so chose Interviews at Hamilton High, Mohammed High and Thandeka occurred during school time, whilst the interviews at Saint Cyprian's took place after school hours.
The interviews were recorded either on a standard large sized tape-recorder or using hand- written notes, depending on whether or not participants permitted auditory recording. After the first 2 interviews at Hamilton High, I was horrified to discover that the first interview was barely audible as the background noise overshadowed the interviewee's voice. (I was able to decipher what was said after countless playbacks. I found that due to poor sound, transcribing became a time consuming process.) This was due to the hollowness of the classroom the interview occurred in. After this debacle, I invested in a recording device which muted
background noise and though expensive; it proved invaluable to the study because in later interviews noise in the form of interruptions - learners walking in, phones ringing, voices of staff members, sirens blasting, classes needing to use the venues occurred.
For interviews where I was required to take notes because respondents objected to and were not comfortable being taped, I regretted not having taken a short hand course prior to beginning this study, as the respondents spoke at their normal conversational pace. The written form does not convey the emotions, or in some cases even full sentences, but merely the overall thought, as I was unable to write as quickly as the respondents spoke. Due to this lacuna in my repertoire of skills, I feel that some of the nuances of what was said may have been lost. Wilson (in Sapsford& Jupp, 1996) says that note taking can be more obtrusive than the tape-recording, though for the teachers who requested it, my hasty scrawls seemed unproblematic.
In my attempt to form a modicum of standardisation, I initially attempted to ask questions in a serial fashion. This resulted in interviews sounding stilted because I had to keep constant check on questions asked, and those still to come. After learning from this fiasco, I attempted to make the interviews appear "less artificial, more natural and more resemble a conversation between equal participants", (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998:95-96), by changing the order of questions as well as the phrasing thereof. I found this both advantageous and disadvantageous, as it allowed for ease of conversation resulting in better rapport (as I did not refer to questions), whilst at the same time preventing total comfort on my part as I had to remember constantly what I had asked and what I still had to ask. I feel that altering the form and order of the questions, which is permissible in qualitative research, did not negatively affect the results of this study. Rather it enhanced the results, as it created the flow engaged in during normal conversation, thus setting teachers at ease and also created more trust, which resulted in more teachers confiding in me.
Clarification was sought, when necessary. In some cases playing the naivete, or what Denzin&
Lincoln call "feigning ignorance" (1998:67), resulted in creating clearer insight into what specific terminology (such as 'OBE' and 'redeployment') meant to different respondents.
Kvale, (1996) stated that the interview can be a positive experience for respondents. I found that the teachers were able to express themselves on issues that they felt strongly about. It
appeared that in some cases that they had not voiced these opinions before. According to Owens (in Carter & Delamont, 1996:60) the result of this catharsis is that it "leads to insight, thus changing the respondent's perceptions, attitudes and eventually outcomes". Owens (ibid.) continues:
To be sure, the interviews were not client centered therapy proper ... However, some of the earlier stages of this type of encounter were similar to counselling: namely the delineation of issues that the respondent found salient but threatening, and the naming of fears. And along with the counselling encounter sometimes deep emotions were tapped.
Although providing an opportunity for respondents to cathart through having the researcher display" encouragement, and understanding" (Lofland, 1971 in LeCompte & Preissle, 1993:
79), and being what Owens (in Carter& Delamont, 1996) calls the "empathic stranger", the danger for the researcher in adopting this empathic ear, was that respondents went off at a tangent on occasion.
Perceptions of what my role was may also have contributed negatively to my research endeavours. I found that I was the only one who knew why I was there, besides the principals in most cases. One member of the staff, at Hamilton High, directly questioned my role and confused me with a visitor who was still to visit the school, who was meant to have an administrative function in the library. At Mohammed and Hamilton High I felt that lack of information may have led to unequal relations. Itwas possible that respondents may have felt that there was a hierarchy in our relations, with myself as the professional and themselves as inferior. I attempted to have teachers realise that it was their experiences that were invaluable and that they knew more than I did, i.e. that they were experts in their own rights (Walker 1985 in Chundra, 1997:64).
Interviewer effects may also have affected this study. Research has shown that aspects such as my age, gender, colour, and social class may negatively influence research in interview situations (Cohen & Manion, 1989). Research has shown that female respondents tend to develop a more bond quicker with female interviewers (Powney & Watts, 1987; Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992). This unchangeable nature of my physiological makeup fact may have resulted in some of the males being at a disadvantage in terms of developing closer rapport with the interviewer. Fontant and Frey (in Denzin & Lincoln, 1998: 64) say that the sex of the interviewer and respondent does make a difference "as the interview takes place within the cultural boundaries of a paternalistic social system in which masculine identities are differentiated from feminine ones". Other factors that may have impacted upon the respondents
were my language and race - the fact that my mother tongue is English and all the interviews were conducted in this language may have put some respondents at a disadvantage. My being Coloured, may have resulted in some interviewees feeling· that they could identify with me, hence opening up more during interviewing; however, this could also have resulted in other interviewees not only feeling uncomfortable in my presence, preventing complete disclosure because of the differences in race and the legacy of the psychological perceptions of ingrained differences of the apartheid era.
3.3. DATA ANALYSIS
3.3.1. FieldNotes
Clifford (1990, in LeCompte& Preissle, 1993:224) described three types of field notes, all of which were used.
Inscription is the notation made in the midst of interaction and participation. These may be quick jottings of key words and symbols or just a momentary self-prompt to remember something. The record resulting from inscription may be written fragments, the researcher's memory, or another reminder of what occurred. The second kind of fieldnotes, transcription, is very different. Transcription is writing something down as it occurs, recording as much as possible exactly as possible. To accomplish this, the researcher is fully observing and recording; participation is minimal, limited to occasional questions or non-verbal acknowledgements. Transcription is creating a text from what the observer is perceiving, from responses to questions, or from dictated narratives. Description, the third kind of field note, occurs out of the flow of activity, sometimes even out of the field. Description is forming a comprehensible account of whatever has been observed. Descriptions are built on inscriptions and transcriptions, butallthree constitute field notes.
During interviewing, I found that I made very few inscriptions; as I was very involved in maintaining the feel of normal conversation. In cases where notes were taken, I was too engrossed in depicting as much of what was said as possible to make inscriptions. Inscriptions did occur though, as observations that were made during, prior and after the interview were noted on paper I had at hand. These proved useful in adding to the richness of descriptives.
Miles& Huberman, (1994) state that storage and retrieval is important. One method that I used was 'pagination' i.e. the use of numbers of material in field notes e.g. bj 1 22. One disadvantage of this though was that the papers piled up and compiling complete reports from them became haphazard and cumbersome. My data took on various forms e.g. copies of literature notations, reference citations, field notes, copies of data on hard copy as well as on disc, cuttings in
envelopes and folders. Chundra (1997:75) perfectly describes this clutter as a "messy business". I felt as if! was up to my "eyeballs in data" (Feldman, 1995: 1).
My supervisor wisely advised me to obtain a diary for my thesis - a not uncommon object when undertaking research (Powney& Watts, 1987; Flick, 1998). I sorely regret that I did not take this advice sooner, as I discovered the usefulness of having all one's ideas in one place invaluable.
Another recommendation made to researchers is that they get right to the task of including inscriptions into research data and not procrastinate. Powney & Watts (1987:185) state that
"novice writers are big procrastinators". I procrastinated hence the paper work mounted.