CHAPTER FOUR Methodological Roadmap
4.6 Research Methodology
Polit and Hungler (2004) refer to a research methodology as a strategy to acquire, organise and analyse data. Holloway (2005) posits that methodology is a coherent way of data collection from beginning to the end of the research. My view is that everything has got to begin from a particular context. Hence, in the next section, I discuss seven subsections of the research methodology, namely, the context, the participants, data generation instrument, data analysis, trustworthiness and ethical clearance.
4.6.1 The context of the research
According to Cresswell (2007), the research context is regarded as a site where a researcher undertakes a study physically, socially and culturally. In this undertaking a researcher should find ways to locate himself or herself in the context by focusing on natural activities. In this regard participants should be the priority and be given space so that they would be able to interact freely with the researcher (Mouton, 1996). The context of this study was three Primary schools and two High schools located within the Durban Metropolitan area in KwaZulu-Natal.
I purposively selected these five schools because I viewed them as having partners who would provide detailed information regarding the dynamics of school partnership.
68 4.6.2 The participants
I purposively selected participants from these five schools. The participants comprised of school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards. The site stewards were from the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU), National Teachers Union (NATU) and National Professional Teachers Organisation of South Africa (Naptosa), I purposively selected these participants because of their positions as leaders in the SGBs. Ray (2012) maintains that purposive sampling is about selecting specific participants based on their knowledge of the phenomenon which is being investigated. Maree (2007) claims that purposive sampling allows the researcher to select the group of people who would be able to respond to questions. To have an insight regarding the dynamics of school partnership, school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards were the key stakeholders to provide sufficient knowledge in this regard. These are people who work together in the SGB, hence, they were the relevant people to share their lived-experiences. The study comprised of 22 participants, namely five school principals, five SGB chairpersons and twelve teacher - union site stewards. Each school had three site stewards except Rock school which had one. This wide range of data resulted in an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of school partnerships. Therefore, I followed five main guidelines for constituting purposive sampling (Higginbottom, 2004). Firstly, I include my personal judgement to select samples. Secondly, I selected knowledgeable participants, Thirdly, I selected participants that were reachable.
Fourthly, the study comprised of participants who all eventually shared their lived experiences.
Fifthly, and lastly, it was the sample that was representative of a range of viewpoints.
4.6.3 Data generation technique
I reported in section 4.3 that this study was qualitative in its approach. According to Sutton and Austin (2015), qualitative data is any kind of data that captures ideas, opinions and information in a non-numerical method. Sutton and Austin (2015) further assert that there are three main types of qualitative data collection, namely: observation, interviews and existing document. To generate data for this study, I utilised the interviews approach. According to Patton (2002), there are three types of interviews, namely: structured interviews, semi structured interviews and unstructured interviews. In the structured interviews, the participants are asked the same questions in the same order (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). In semi-structured interviews a researcher can prepare interviews ahead of time. In the unstructured interviews, the participant does all the talking. In this study I opted for the semi-structured interviews because
69
participants` expansion and flexibility are encouraged. On my side as a researcher, in the semi - structured interviews there is room for re-ordering and probing. Therefore, the utilisation of the semi-structured interviews was because it afforded me to prepare for questions ahead of time, but still leaving room for flexibility. By the time, I generated data, I was prepared and knowledgeable as to how to conduct interviews. It was inspiring to me to hear the participants express their views in their own terms (Patton, 2002).
Adler and Adler (1987) acknowledge that most scholars encourage the utilisation of more than one data generation instrument. But these scholars argue that in the semi-structured interviews, flexibility is also encouraged on both the researcher and the participants. These scholars postulate that one data generation instrument can be used to generate data. They argue that it depends on the nature of the participants. They posit that if the study comprises of more than one group, with different perspectives, utilisation of one instrument such as interviews is acceptable. These scholars argue that the most important thing is to have an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. But they insist that if a researcher chooses to utilise one data generation instrument, it is imperative for such data generation to be done more than once.
It was because of these reasons that I opted for semi-structured interviews. The study comprises of five school principals, five SGB chairpersons and 22 teacher-union site stewards. These partners had different perspectives or represented different constituencies. School principals represented the Department of Education. The SGB chairpersons represented parents. Teacher - union site stewards represented educators.
With regard to venues where interviews were held, I negotiated with the participants. Four school principals chose to come to my school. The fifth principal, two SGB chairpersons and all teacher - union site stewards recommended the utilisation of their schools as venues for data generation. The other three SGB chairpersons suggested that we use their homes as meeting places to have interviews. I generated data from the same participants on two occasions. This arrangement and agreements of venues remained the same for both sessions of the interviewing process.
On the first occasion, I generated data regarding the participants` profiles, histories` to partnership, and understanding of working together as partners. The duration of each interview with each participant was between 50 - 60 minutes. The second session of interviews focused on the participants’ lived-experiences and on seeking their suggestions regarding the enhancement of school partnership. In this second occasion, I actually spent less time compared
70
to the first session. I noticed that most participants were relaxed and showed eagerness to express their views. I generated detailed data. I presume at the second session, there was more trust and rapport had improved.
The utilisation of interviews proved that the semi-structured interviews was crucial in understanding the dynamics of school partnership. Firstly, through open deliberations and interactions, an element of trust developed between the participants and myself. Secondly, insight regarding the phenomenon emerged. Thirdly, the participants were fully involved to such an extent that most of them eventually admitted that they initially somehow had contributed negatively to the partnership. This resulted in positive suggestions that something had to be done to rectify the situation. I enjoyed utilising the semi-structured interviews. I noticed that all the advantages of utilising interviews as highlighted by the following scholars, emerged during the data generation process.
McNamara (1999) asserts that the qualitative research interview is an engagement where the interviewer asks an interviewee verbal questions for the purpose of understanding his or her lived -experiences regarding the phenomenon. Maree (2007) points out that interviews are two- way process. It is when a researcher and participants have an interaction, deliberation and engagement. Through the interviews I was able to obtain rich and detailed information pertaining to the dynamics of school` partnership (Merriam, 1998). According to Burns and Grove (2003) one of the advantages of an interview is that it enables researchers a flexibility to acquire an-in depth information. It is through this flexibility that the interviewee feels at ease to share or reveal more information. Patton (2002) concurs with Burns and Grove (2010) that through flexible interviews a researcher can obtain a high rate of information from a participant.
Holloway and Wheeler (1995) posit that interviews cater for all types of participants`
educational levels. This means the nature of interviews are in line with the South African Schools Act (199). This Act stipulates that any parent can be a member of SGB partnership, regardless of his or her educational level. Some of the participants who contributed regarding understanding of the school partnership` dynamics had low level of education. I had to interview them using a language of their choice. In the case of SGB chairpersons it was IsiZulu.
To apply further flexibility, participants who wanted to code switch were permitted to do that.
Through this code switching and flexibility, knowledge regarding school partnership’s dynamics emerged. Auer (2013) attests that code switching is permissible in data collection.
Further interviews afford the researchers a chance to discover information that probably would not be accessible if a participant uses a language that he or she is not eloquent in (Blaxter &
71
Hughes, 2006). Additionally, the advantage of interviews is that the interviewer looks at himself or herself from the eyes of the interviewee. He / she tries to be in the participant`s shoe (Farr, 1982). Domyei (2007) argues that with the presence of the interviewer mutual understanding can be enhanced. Furthermore, the researcher has an opportunity to simplify and rephrase questions that are not clear to the interviewee. According to Berg (2007), if a researcher uses interviews he or she has an opportunity to record participants` responses. In this sense data can be reviewed at a later stage several times. This helps in making sure that there is no data that disappears. Through interviews there is also an opportunity of taking notes which are used in the report.
Although the interview data generation instrument proved to be the best compared to other instruments, there were some hiccups with it. During the interviewing process some participants were shy and had difficulty speaking their minds. They often tried to respond in ways that would appease the researcher instead of being sincere about their lived - experiences.
Meyer (2015) points out that what people in an interview do to some degree, is to shape the question they are asked, their belief, the conventions and by what they believe the researcher would approve or disapprove of. To encourage the participants to express their views frankly and independently, I asked several probing questions. Furthermore, I allowed the participants to talk without interrupting them. Poole and Lamb (1998) also point out that one of the weaknesses of the interviews is that some researchers fail to hide their bias and subjectivity.
This failure sometimes impacts negatively on the participants` independent responses. To avoid putting pressure on the participants` independent thinking, I kept on emphasising and encouraging them to speak more openly and sincerely.
McNamara (1999) asserts that interviews can be costly and time consuming. This is very true because I had to travel to interview some of the participants. The worst part was when I arrived and found that some participants failed to honour scheduled appointments. But just because I was determined to interview them, I had to wait or rescheduled another interview. My patience yielded positive results because eventually I managed to interview all the identified participants. Another time that was consumed when I interviewed the participants on two occasions. This was when I addressed the fourth question about the enhancement of school partnership. This second phase of data generation was after the general election of the school governing body. This task proved to be fruitful exercise as Cohen (2014) insists that if a researcher uses one instrument it is essential to conduct more than one interviews. There was also a change of the SGB chairperson at Rock Primary school. This change also meant that
72
instead of continuing seeking opinions regarding the enhancement of the participants as planned I had to start from the beginning. The purpose was to afford the 2nd CP-3 (RP) a chance to firstly answer questions which speak directly to question one and two. This approach helped because she seemed to understand that the dynamics of partnership existed at the time of her predecessor. But the unfortunate part was when I had to ask her the same questions which I asked her predecessor. It was imperative to know about her understanding and experiences of dynamics regarding school partnership. McNamara (1999) posits that the interview process requires a researcher and the participant to be focused and also listen attentively. It happened at the initial stage that while interviews were in progress, there were interruptions caused by phone ringing. This caused some distraction. Fortunately, I tape-recorded the participants`
interview. To address this situation, I insisted that the cell phone to be switched off.
Unfortunately, one participant expressed unhappiness, insisting that he was expecting a very important call. Robson, and McCartan (2016) assert that one of the disadvantages of interviews is that they involved numerous steps such as data collection, analysis, transcription and, coding and translation. I had to undertake all these steps.
Despite all these hiccups I encountered regarding the utilisation of the interview method, I enjoyed interviewing the participants. Due to the interaction with the participants, I was actively involved with them. This involvement afforded me an opportunity to probe them whenever I needed clarities. Furthermore, through this engagement with the participants, I was able to analyse data for the purpose of attaching meanings. Hence, while interviewing the participants I was basically killing two birds with one stone. It was at the interview stage and at the same time it was the beginning of data analysis which is described hereafter (Kaar, 2007).