CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING THE CASE STUDY: REACHING THE VOICES OF
4.5 Section 3: Measures to ensure quality
4.5.1 Trustworthiness
4.5.1.2 Piloting the study
to the audio-recorded conversation again to ensure that I did not miss anything in the transcription.
production, if needed. I refined the questions of the questionnaire, focus group discussion and critical individual conversation by overcoming any shortcoming in the methods, which I used to have effective results from the main study. Piloting the study had therefore enabled me to determine whether the female engineering students understood the questions. It is crucial to note that the findings of the pilot are reflected in the main study findings.
4.5.1.2.1 Selecting the participants for the pilot study
I chose the female engineering students enrolled in the third year of a four-year engineering for the pilot study because students in the third year of the programme were undergoing both theory lectures and field work and these students were quite familiar with the system existing at that particular higher education institution. The higher education institution would be the same as that of the main study. The pilot study was conducted from October to December 2015 instead of September to December 2015, because at the beginning it was quite difficult to meet the students, due to their unavailability. In October 2015, I had a meeting with all the 6 participants enrolled in the third year of the four-year engineering programme to explain to them about my research project and the methods that would be used for data production. I assured all the participants that the data that they would provide in the questionnaire, focus group discussion and critical individual conversations would be confidential and anonymous. Only 4 female students were willing to participate in the pilot study. The meeting lasted 15 minutes. The consent of the 4 female engineering students to participate in the study was obtained prior to starting the pilot study. The findings of the pilot study are at Appendix 8.
4.5.1.2.2 Qualitative questionnaire in the pilot study
The qualitative questionnaire was distributed to the 4 female engineering students in a lecture room, at the higher education institution before the start of a lecture and was collected after 30 minutes. I reassured them about confidentiality and anonymity.
4.5.1.2.3 Focus group discussion in the pilot study
In the focus group discussion, I made sure that all participants speak; some were more enthusiastic than other participants. I addressed the questions to each of them
by maintaining eye contact with each of them to provoke some reactions. The interview, which was audio recorded, lasted around one hour but the first 15 minutes were dedicated to make them comfortable so that they could talk freely. Therefore, a schedule for focus group discussion that mirrored the research questions was prepared prior to the group discussion. All the questions of the focus group discussion as a data gathering technique were quite clear to the participants. Initially, the participants were quite hesitant when answering the first question. However, when they all started participating, the flow of information improved. During the focus group discussion, I also appreciated the rapport I had with the participants – the human behaviour and interactions. As some of the participants were quite friendly with me, they did not hesitate to discuss the themes that were presented to them and they talked openly, yielding rich data.
4.5.1.2.4 Critical individual conversation in the pilot study
The critical individual conversation was conducted with one participant and lasted for one and a half hours. A participant was chosen from among the 4 participants who were in the group discussion, based on the data she provided in the focus group discussion. The schedule for critical individual conversation mirrored the research questions and was ready before the interview. The critical individual conversation was audio recorded and the participant, according to the schedule, answered the questions. This first critical individual conversation had enabled me to familiarise myself with the skills of an interviewer. After thanking the participant for having agreed to conduct the interview, I guaranteed the participant again about confidentiality and anonymity.
4.5.1.2.5 Ploughing back the feedback from the pilot study into the main study A refining of my instruments, such as asking more ‘why’ regarding the gender issues and asking more probing questions during the focus group discussion and critical individual conversation, would enable me to have a more in-depth study of the gender regimes prevailing at Fly University. The three methods (qualitative questionnaire, focus group discussion and critical individual conversation) were retained.
Some questions of the focus group discussion were modified to make them clearer. I
added more probing questions like “Can you say more?”, “Can you explain further?”, “What exactly did you mean?”, “Could you give me an example?” and
“Could you tell an incident”, to get more in-depth information.
In the critical individual conversation questions, two additional questions were included. Question 1 was added to know the type of secondary school the participants attended. This question was important because the type of secondary school (either a single-sex school or co-education school) that the participants attended had an influence on the relationship the female participants had with their male peers at Fly University. Question 9 was added to identify whether the male students interact with other female students enrolled on other programmes at the university.
4.5.2 Positionality
My work as a government employee from the regulatory body of higher education in Mauritius and having previously been a student in a programme in which I was the only girl, encouraged me to do this study. As a researcher, I knew that I was the inquirer instead of a government employee or a former student. It is generally believed that local researchers find it easier to access the study field, due to their familiarity with the local language. The local researcher is not seen as domineering and power differences between the interviewer and the interviewee are limited (Weiner-Levy & Queder, 2012, p. 1153). Being a female researcher doing research on female participants helped me to have the best possible understanding of the experiences of the young women because the culture of male supremacy, patriarchy and power were known to me, as was the case for the participants. From the outset, this positionality enabled me as a local researcher to recognise the experiences that the participants underwent. Being a woman myself, the study was important for me as I could easily find myself being in the place of the participants. Being myself previously a student from the STEM field has helped me as a researcher to understand better the learning experiences of the participants and sometimes I was also able to relate their learning experiences to my own lived experiences. It was not difficult for me to feel the discrimination/oppression that the participants experienced.