Researchers are often confronted with the challenge of deciding whether to use quantitative or qualitative research or both. According to the definitions by Wegner (2002, 7) qualitative random variables yield categorical (non numeric) responses and quantitative random variables yield numeric responses. Welman and Kruger (2002, 7) proposes that in following the strict natural-scientific method in human behavioural sciences, it must be limited to what can be observed and measured objectively and exists independently of the feelings and opinions of individuals. The philosophical approach forming the basis of the natural scientific method is known as logical positivism. The anti-positivists oppose this approach. The different groups of anti-positivists (e.g. phenomenologist) all share a resistance to upholding the natural scientific method as the norm for human behavioural research. The natural -scientific approach strives to formulate laws that apply to populations (are universally valid) and explains the causes of objectively observable and measurable behaviour. "Objectively" meaning that other people should agree on what is observed (e.g. the score on the measuring instrument). According to the anti-positivists the natural-scientific approach has been designed for studying molecules, etc.
They therefore regard it as inappropriate to follow strict natural-scientific methods when collecting and interpreting data in the human behavioural sciences. The phenomenologist believes that the human experience can not be separated from the person experiencing it. The positivists define their approach as the study of observable human behaviour. The anti-positivists believe they must deal with the experiencing of human behaviour. The positivists aim to uncover general laws of relationships and/or causality that applies to all people at all times. The
phenomenologist aim to understand human behaviour from the perspectives of the people involved, therefore they are not concerned with the description of phenomena (that exists independently of the participants experience of them) but with the experience of these phenomena.
According to Maykut and Morehouse (1999, 2) quantitative research is based on observations that are converted into discrete units that can be compared to other units by using statistical analysis and qualitative research examines the words and actions of people in narrative or descriptive ways that are more closely representing the situation as it is experienced by the participants. Furthermore, Maykut and Moorehouse (1999, 64) argues that there is not a clear cut distinction between the two approaches. They propose that a qualitative study can also include formal instruments such as questionnaires and tests. According to Bandura (1986,22) the person, the environment and the behaviour of the person all have mutual relationships with each other and that the four main information sources for the development of the conceptual concept of the study are the experiential knowledge of the researcher, existing theory and research, pilot studies and thought experiments. For the purpose of this study it was decided to use the experiential knowledge of the researcher (he has been implementing the IQMS for two years and was a facilitator at many training workshops on IQMS), the existing theory and research on the topic and conduct a pilot study.
For the purpose of this study it was decided to use both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
The first part of the study (the quantitative study) was to consist of conducting training workshops on the implementation of IQMS, in-depth interviews and personally implementing the system at the school where the researcher was the principal. Thus the issues involved were personally experienced and understood. The second part of the study consisted of a quantitative study based on detailed questionnaires from more than four hundred respondents that were statistically analyzed.
4.5. Experiential data
According to Maxwell (1997, 78), the explicit incorporation of the identity and experience (called experiential data) of the researcher in the research can provide a source of insights, hypothesis and validity checks. The more than two decades of experience of this researcher with the performance management of educators most certainly influenced the purpose and nature of
this study. His experience is therefore briefly discussed to indicate the influence that it had on the study.
The starting point of his interest in the performance management of educators was as a newly appointed teacher during 1981 when he discovered that his performance as educator has been evaluated to determine if he would be permanently appointed as educator at a public school. It was flattering to find out that his evaluation was of such a nature that he was indeed appointed permanently, but at no stage was explained what was expected, done right and needs to be improved upon further. This lack of transparency and coaching was painfully felt when he discovered during 1986 that he could not apply for promotion positions because he has been
"evaluated" and did not yet qualify for promotion. Upon enquiry he was told that he could not see his evaluation because it was "confidential". This performance appraisal process of yesteryear made the researcher aware of how crucial a transparent performance appraisal process and staff development is.
During 1994 the researcher was appointed in a management position and one of the challenges was to get a staff that was very set in their ways and far behind up to standard. The questions however, were what standard and according to which criteria. This brought home the importance of a structured performance management system, with adequate forms that motivated staff and incorporated goal setting and problem solving.
During 1998 the researcher was appointed as principal and was faced with the above challenges again. The importance of class visits were now brought home. During 2003 the researcher was very excited when the Integrated Quality Management System (lQMS) was introduced by the Department of Education. As principal he went to the very first workshop on IQMS and set about implementing it at his school. It soon became very clear that this system was a vast improvement on the previous systems, but there were teething problems that were experienced.
With the next round of training workshops the researcher was appointed as one of the facilitators. During the discussions at the workshop it soon became clear that most principals experienced a problem with inaccurate performance appraisal scores and the perception by some educators that IQMS is a disciplinary tool for management.
This previous practical experience provided the researcher with a fairly good understanding of the performance management process and an appreciation of the complexities involved. Maxwell (1997, 79) pointed out that researchers have to beware of imposing their "assumptions and values uncritically on the research". More quantitatively based research was needed. During February 2006 the researcher therefore successfully requested for permission to do research on the perceptions about IQMS amongst the educators and principals of the Department of Education. The previously mentioned experience guided the identification of the issues of concern and the supervisor Or. Hunter guided him in the formulation of the questionnaire that was handed to the educators attending the IQMS workshop and the principals attending a principal's meeting.