132
this approach the school is considered as a complex human activity system with different stakeholders, bearing a certain influence on the school issues.
In support of this paradigm, Mackenzie and Mouton (2006) posit that its strength lies on the gathering of data. I view this paradigm as key based on its epistemological and ontological strength and the nature of this study. The study uses the qualitative research paradigm with a view to applying some of the soft systems approaches, interpretation and making of meaning of data.
133
qualitative research methods as the preferred one based on the theoretical framework of this study.
4.5.2 Qualitative research methods
According to Harwell (2011) qualitative methods focus on discovering and understanding.
Scholars concur that in qualitative studies, the emphasis is on words as compared to numbers in the gathering of data and analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Bless, Gomm, 2008; Silverman, 2010; Harwell, 2011; Higson-Smith & Sithole, 2013). The qualitative research methodology was selected as the appropriate for this study. Amongst the key elements of a qualitative research is the inclusion of investigation and inclusivity as the key elements that underpin qualitative research (Key, 1997). Scholars and researchers use qualitative research methods across a wide field of disciplines (Key, 1997; Key, 2000; Terre Blanche, Kelly & Durrheim, 2006). Amongst the disciplines which embrace qualitative research are namely, ethnography, anthropology and field or practitioner observer research to mention a few. The centre of focus in qualitative approaches is on the observation of how the variables feature themselves in the context of the study under investigation. Another distinguishing feature of qualitative research is that it involves a lot of depth and comprehensive information during the quest for a broader understanding of issues (Key, 2000; Creswell, 2003; Terre Blanche, et al., 2006).
In the discussion above I justified the use of the interpretivist /constructivist paradigm as the preferred one in terms of the theoretical framework of this study. It was earlier indicated that the interpretive /constructive paradigm places this research problem at the centre in order to understand it. There are a number of reasons which can be cited to justify the selection of this method.
Firstly, as a qualitative study it takes place in a natural setting to develop an understanding of the context and the experiences of the participants. Qualitative studies allow the element of emergence, whereby there is no predetermined path to follow. It is also interpretive, as the researcher will be interpreting the data, describing settings and drawing conclusions from the emerging themes (Rossman & Rallis, 1998, Creswell, 2003). This study is also primarily concerned with generating and analysing qualitative data. What distinguishes qualitative
134
research methods is their value in trying to describe and interpret the feelings and experiences of people in human terms, as opposed to the use of numbers and measurement (De Vos, 2002; Creswell, 2003; Terre Blanche, et al., 2006).
Secondly, as a qualitative research it is embedded in the social situation whereas quantitative research tends to distance the researcher from the social and cultural context of the research.
In qualitative research there is a great tendency towards bringing elements of biasness and assumptions which are due to the influence of the researcher‘s social, political and cultural background (Muhammad, et al., 2014, Rose, 1997; Merriman, et al., 2001). In Chapter One I elaborated upfront my positionality in this study. As it is a qualitative study, I acknowledged upfront that there will exist elements of subjectivity based on my beliefs and assumptions.
Scholars concur that qualitative studies allow the reader to understand the personal and social realities with empathy (Terre Blanche, et al., 2006; De Vos, 2002).
In this study the belief is that there will be an understanding of the use of systems thinking in school development. To address the research questions, three different but complimentary methods and sources of gathering research data were adopted and combined in a holistic manner. These were semi-structured interviews, focus group discussion and reflective journal practice. In this research study, three qualitative research instruments were used; a) semi- structured interview guide administered to the principals, and b) a focus group discussion with semi structured interview questions administered to principals, and reflection on journals and diaries for data gathering. I did not present the questions in the same sequence and manner as he conducted interviews with the other respondents. This was due the engagement in trying to get to the depth of the issues (De Vos, 2002; Polit & Hungler, 2004).
With this method I had the flexibility to probe further as the situation allowed. I allowed the respondents to respond freely without any interference. Furthermore, I probed on areas where there was a need to elicit more information.
The principals provided their personal responses to the questions, based on the understanding, the use, the benefits and challenges of systems thinking to school development. Due to the probing, some of the sub-questions did not fall into the above categories. The focus discussion group was based on the main questions and on the sub- questions which were semi-structured. I probed this issue in-depth in order to seek more
135
clarity. This approach to the study sought to generate rich data and also to triangulate and cross examine the data on the phenomena under examination. This approach was adopted in order to get an in depth understanding of the use, the benefits and challenges of systems thinking to school development from these sources of information and to give credence to the conclusions of the study.
Apart from the semi–structured formal interviews, further information about the environment and context of the cases was elicited from the respondents in their own context. As will be indicated in the next chapter and in the appendix, the questions were not logically presented to each principal.
One way of finding out much about the views of respondents, was to engage in the process of qualitative data generation through the use of semi-structured interviews. The use of qualitative research enables the views of a variety of participants to be gathered within a short time. Notwithstanding this, the purpose of the study was to probe deeply into a small number of important and complex aspects of practice and to specifically examine the current use of systems thinking approach in school development. In order to examine the concepts in depth and to deepen the understanding of the complexity of issues involved, the research was undertaken from a qualitative perspective. Stake (2005) clarifies the value of taking into account a variety of experiences and contexts in qualitative research which optimises understanding. This was done in order to understand the different contexts in which these participants operate from. The review of literature enhances the value of systems thinking in working with complex human activity systems such as school development.
According to Breen (2006), the critical question in qualitative research is to find out what the study will bring to the table. Breen (2006) believes that focus groups are better placed to enable the respondents to engage in sharing issues, comparing their experiences on the use of systems thinking to school development, developing and generating ideas and exploring the benefits and challenges of using system thinking. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the use of system thinking perspective, the participants were required to be interviewed through the use of semi-structured questions.
136
Scholars agree on the justification for the use of the focus group in the study is also based on the limited time frame for gathering data, useful for making decisions that have implications for further studies on school development (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Robson, 2002;
Morgan, 1996). The key characteristics of focus groups is that they consist of people who have particular characteristics who provide qualitative data; who collaboratively discuss issues of interest in a focused manner (Kreuger & Casey, 2009). I indicated earlier that these participants were purposively selected due to their interest in this study. For this study, I prepared a schedule of questions for the focus discussion groups as one of the research techniques for gathering data by means of group interactions on selected topics (Morgan, 1996). By means of this approach, there are three aspects that are I covered viz., the gathering of data, the facilitation of discussion between participants as way of data collection and my role as the facilitator of the discussion. I facilitated the discussion in relation to the critical questions aligned to understanding systems, the use of systems thinking to school development, the benefits of suing a systems thinking approach and the challenges thereof.
The combined use of semi-structured interviews, focus group discussion and reflective journal techniques strengthens the value of the study by means of employing collaborative techniques (Morgan, 1996). For this study, the combined use of the above mentioned methods for the gathering data strengthens the depth of the study.
At the beginning of the interview session I outlined the agenda for members of the focus group (Newby, 2010). I also afforded the participants of the focus discussion group ample time to interact with the main issues by engaging the discussion around key questions. All participants were afforded the opportunity, in order to avoid the dominance by one particular individual (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2012).
The following figure illustrates the flow of activities and the link between these elements that constitute the research design.
137 Figure 4.1: The Framework of Research