152 12. The Value of
Journaling What are the new things you are doing that contribute to school development?
13. Challenges of Working
with Systems Thinking What are some of the challenges of using a System Thinking Approach to school development?
153
credibility is understood to be a focus on the extent to which the data and data analysis are believable and trustworthy (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Maxwell, 2004; Shenton, 2004; Richards
& Morse, 2012). According to the philosophy underlying qualitative research, reality is relative to meaning that people construct within social contexts. Qualitative research is valid to the researcher and not necessarily to others due to the possibility of multiple realities. It is upon the reader to judge the extent of its credibility based on his/her on understanding of the study. Most rationalists would propose that there is not a single reality to be discovered, but that each individual constructs a personal reality (Gergen, 2009; Burr, 2015). Thus, from an interpretive perspective, understanding is co-created and there is no objective truth or reality to which the results of a study can be compared. I ensured that participants receive feedback after the transcriptions were done, for them to check on their responses. After finishing with all the semi-structured interviews with all the participants, I set up another session where the participants met as a focus group to discuss the schedule of questions I had prepared. Thirdly, I also collected the other information from their pictures to confirm some of the incidents they cited. Furthermore the respondents showed me their diaries and journals where they kept some notes on other incidents and events. I have also stated upfront my positionality which addresses the issue of the researcher being the major instrument of gathering data (Patton, 1990) I followed the protocol and procedures required in terms of ethical clearance as will be attached as appendices. I have used the words of respondents as part of the data presentation, to ensure they form part of the thick descriptions of data (Shenton, 2004).
4.9.3 Transferability
Scholars concur that by transferability is understood the extent to which the findings can be applied to other areas (Lincoln & Guba, 1998; Merriman, 1985; Maxwell, 2002). Research findings are transferable or generalisable only if they fit into new contexts outside the actual study context. There are contrasting views on this issue, since findings of a case study are specific to a small scale of participants, within a particular context (Erlandson & Edwards, 1993).
Stake (1998) and Denscombe (1998) offer a contrasting view on this issue, and argue in favour of the uniqueness of each case, yet be representing a broader group. They argue that
154
the issue of transferability need not be rejected outright, but be considered on the basis of the merits of each case presented. On the contrary, Gomm, Hammersley & Foster (2000) argue that contextual factors need not be undermined by this argument. Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Firestone (1993) further suggest that it is incumbent upon the researcher to ensure enough contextual information about the fieldwork sites is provided to enable the reader to make such a transfer. Qualitative researchers suggest that readers need to check the described background and research report in terms of its context before they can determine how far they can be confident in transfer the findings and conclusions to other situations (Shenton, 2004;
Cohen, et al., 2000; Seale 1999). The pitfall by many researchers is to stop short of what Denscombe (1998) suggests in terms of providing the background information, contextual data and the case study location for comparison with other environments. Another angle of looking at this issue is the significance attached to conveying to the reader the boundary of the study (Cole & Gardiner, 1979; Marchionini & Teague, 1987). The suggestion is that this additional information needs to be recognised before any attempts at transference are made. I have indicated in this study my positionality, the context in which the schools are located, but this was not a suggesting that this study can be transferred.
I have also indicated that a study of this nature is unique in terms of the theoretical framework that was deployed, particularly in the education. I support the argument posited by Borgman (1986) and Pitts (1994) that the understanding of a phenomena is gained gradually as other studies are also conducted, not necessarily on the basis of one major study conducted in isolation. I declared upfront that this is a case study which cannot necessarily be generalised, however the inferential generalisations are based on the unique contexts outlined (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). In this chapter I have discussed in detail the research design and the methodology in order to acquaint the reader with all the processes involved for him or her to make an opinion about the study (Seale, 1999; Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000).
155 4.9.4 Dependability
Scholars agree that by dependability is understood the extent to which research findings can be replicated with similar subjects in a similar context (Merriman, 1985; Lincoln & Guba, 1998). An assertion is made by Lincoln & Guba (1985) of the close affinity between credibility and dependability. A different argument is held by qualitative researchers that due to the changing nature of the phenomenon under investigation, it is problematic to expect similar findings as the positivists would argue within their paradigm. Lincoln and Guba (1998) advance their argument on the basis of inclusive approach in the study which details the research design and its implementation and operational detail of data gathering and reflective appraisal of the study (Shenton, 2014). An argument to the contrary is made by Florio- Ruane (1991) that the researcher‘s observations are tied to situational context of the study, and the ―published descriptions are static and frozen in the ‗ethnographic present‘ ‖.
I have made an attempt to detail the description of the research design and methodology in order for the reader to ascertain what was happening during this research enterprise.
4.9.5 Confirmability
There is broad agreement amongst scholars that by confirmability is meant the degree to which the results of the study can be confirmed or corroborated by other researchers (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985; Guba, 1981; Baxter & Eyles, 1997). Tobin and Begley (2004) reiterate that this refers to the issue of confirming that the data is not from the researcher‘s imagination, but rather from the respondents. Scholars concur of this issue that several strategies are deployed to affirm and confirm the data and findings. However, different strategies are suggested such as conducting an audit trial, reflexive journal and triangulation (Bowen, 2009;
Koch, 2006; Lincoln &Guba, 1985). By conducting an audit trial Bowen (2009) argues that it ensures that the process and the product of the study does not originate from the imagination of the researcher. Another strategy used is the reflexive journal which is kept by the researcher during the course of the study, for purposes of recording the incidents, events and all that happened during fieldwork (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989; Koch, 2006). According to Krefting (1991) by reflexivity is meant how the researcher guarded against the influence of
156
his/her background, perceptions, and interests on the qualitative research process. I have indicated upfront that I have stated my positionality and bias as a matter of fact. The basis for that was to ensure that I minimize my personal biases and perceptions that may interfere with the findings and conclusions of the study.