LIST OF TABLES
1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY
For this study, the researcher employed a selection of research teams (participants) as the study will be trying to propose a transformative approach to embracing LGBTI communities at a university campus by contacting those who this study may be helpful to. Patton (2015) suggests that in research, participants/respondents should be selected in accordance to the significance of their involvement on the study. This study employed participatory action research which deals with the participants’ collective suggestions to formulate an approach to embrace LGBTI communities at a university campus (Ratsoy, 2013).
10
1.7.1 Selection of participants
The study took take place in one of the tertiary institutions in South Africa. In this study, the selection of participants involved those at the university and outside. Therefore, the selection of participants for this study was anchored on Bertram and Christiansen (2014) who emphasise research data selection procedures for sampling methods by acknowledge purposive and convenience sampling techniques in qualitative research.
The researcher recruited participants for this study through purposive sampling in order to get individuals from the LGBTI communities as well as heterosexual participants. The total number of participants was 17. There were (5) participants from the LGBTI communities within the university; (3) Lecturers, (5) heterosexual students, one (1) SRC member, (1) LGBTI representative from outside the university, one (1) student Counsellor and development practitioner, as well as one on campus faith- based community representative. Only those who were willing and available were part of the study. The selected (17) participants were based on the assumption that they would add value in terms of their input to this study because the LGBTI communities’
issues are not in isolation but involve others around them.
To gain participants’ attention, the researcher firstly placed an advertisement on the notice boards over the campus on the nature of the study, stating that anyone who is interested to participate is free to contact them through email or phone. Through the advert, the researcher got a student, who through snowball sampling led him to four other members from the LGBTI community who were willing to participate in the study.
In support to the participants’ recruitment process and in line with Krista and Mark (2010), who argue that a participant serves a prominent role as they can recruit other participants in a sensitive type of study such that participants were difficult to find. The researcher identified one member of LGBTI communities to help getting other members for this study (Krista & Mark, 2010). Other participants were selected based on the assumption of either they would add value to this study.
The researcher decided to allow only those who agreed to cooperate and adhere with the terms to participate in the study, as recommended by Palys and Atchison (2008).
The tools used to gather information include focus group discussions, collages, dialogues, conversations and meetings. The researcher audiotaped the meetings,
11
conversations and dialogues in order to generate rich data. The study participants were gathered through snowball sampling and convenience techniques, meaning that the results of this research can be applicable to the same population size. However, transferability of the results is possible for similar groups or contexts. The researcher found that with Bertram and Christiansen (2014) that a good qualitative research possess basic rigors which include transferability, confirmability, dependability and credibility. On the importance by Silverman (2013) that states that research can be verified through triangulating evidences on the process of qualitative data process and management. It therefore imperative to ensure that the coordination of the study follows the authentic process of qualitative research, as a researcher must maintain a subjective participation role.
1.7.2 Participatory Action Research as a data generating method
The researcher sees this study as participatory, because it is qualitative research that appreciates the input of the collective view of participants towards developing a transformative approach that will seek to embrace LGBTI communities at a university campus. In support to my approach, Punch (2009) defines a paradigm as an essential set of philosophies or viewpoints, which guides action or serves to direct the research.
Individuals’ different perspectives on something influence their construction of realities around of a particular issue, place or thing. Hennink, Hutter and Bailey (2011) also defined paradigms as ways of looking at reality, or frames of reference used to organise observations and reasoning.
The Participatory Action Research (PAR) paradigm is suitable for this study because it involves diverse views and opinions of people on how to develop a transformative approach to embrace LGBTI communities at a university campus. Moreover, the study is an action research study that will involve different representation of groups as stated to draw an approach that is transformative in embracing LGBTI communities at a university campus through the ‘Bronfrenbenner’s ecological systems’ theory.
Participatory action research is an, approach with flexibility influence to accommodate participant’s involvement on the research (Kumar, 2012). PAR is a democratic, equitable, liberating, and life-enhancing qualitative inquiry that remains distinct from other qualitative methodologies (Kach and Kralik, 2006). In this research, the research
12
team were allowed to produce knowledge on their own, which was then shared with the researcher.
In addition, PAR works within a timeframe, and knowledge of the participants’, sensitivity to the topics covered is vital, and it is also important for the researcher to acknowledge participants’ intentions of doing the study (Young, 2006). Consensus around social issues, such as LGBTI intolerance and the timeframe anticipated for the change might be difficult (McNiff and Whitehead, 2006). PAR encourages a small number of individuals in a focus group to facilitate a relaxed atmosphere for participants, thus enabling useful data generation. During a focus group, it is the researcher’s duty to create a supportive environment in which discussion, conversation and differing points of view are strengthened (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). Therefore, PAR empowers triangulation of findings since there are different kinds of data generation procedures.