Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology
4.4 Sampling 95
In this section I discuss the structural procedure of sampling that I followed in this study.
This discussion begins with the PPER sampling, from which this study‘s data was drawn.
4.4.1 PPER sampling
The initial selection of institutions from which to gather data for the larger PPER study in 2006/7 was based on the research output in education over the past decade, and the region in which the institution was located. The project sought a representative of regions in South Africa with the belief that regional needs do impact on the kinds of research conducted in HEIs. Further, the wish was to select institutions on the basis of their having had a substantial history of education research, whilst not disqualifying institutions because of previous disadvantage. The initial institutions that were selected included (in alphabetic order):
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (Eastern Cape);
Rhodes University (Eastern Cape);
Stellenbosch University (Western Cape);
University of Cape Town (Western Cape);
University of Fort Hare (Eastern Cape);
University of the Free State (Free State);
96 University of Johannesburg (Gauteng);
University of KwaZulu-Natal (KwaZulu-Natal) University of the North-West (Limpopo);
University of the Western Cape (Western Cape) University of the Witwatersrand (Gauteng)
The belief of the project leaders that the two factors (output and region) would ensure that region-specific information was gathered and the breadth of research over a chronological period characterised by rapid change was covered. In 2008 the National Research Foundation (NRF) needed the project to collect data from the remaining eleven Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as well, which were originally not part of the project. These were:
Cape Peninsula University of Technology;
Central University of Technology;
Durban University of Technology;
Tshwane University of Technology;
University of Limpopo;
University of Pretoria;
University of South Africa;
University of Venda;
University of Zululand;
Vaal University of Technology;
97
Walter Sisulu University for Technology and Science (did not take part in the project).
4.4.2 Sampling: this study
The sampling technique for this study was purposive. Purposive sampling is a type of non-probability sampling which is based on the knowledge a researcher has of the population and its elements (Babbie & Mouton, 2007; Cohen Manion & Morrison, 2007).
As the name of this sampling strategy suggests, it is used or followed to satisfy a particular purpose. For this study sampling is purposive because data was obtained from the larger PPER database, that is, I selected from the topics in the database all those that were on Environmental Education or Education for Sustainable Development, as the study is looking at research trends in postgraduate Environmental Education research.
Makhado (2002) states that to increase the utility of information obtained from samples, purposive sampling must be done. This requires that information be obtained about variations among the subunits before the sample is chosen. It is for these reasons that the sample for this study was selected from the initial eleven PPER institutions.
Noticing that most of the institutions in the PPER sample have produced very little or no Environmental Education research in their faculties of Education in the period 1995 to 2004, I decided to focus only on the two that had the biggest numbers of Environmental Education theses and dissertations during the study period: The University of Johannesburg (UJ) and Rhodes University (RU). I regarded these institutions as information-rich for my research questions. The power and logic of purposive sampling is that those few cases that are studied in depth yield much insight about the topic
98
(Makhado, 2002). Considering the amount of time that is involved in the process of data capturing, cataloguing and cleaning, the additional PPER sample, that which added institutions that were initially not sampled, was excluded from this study.
From the PPER database, all PhD and M. Ed theses and dissertations from the two sampled institutions, with a focus on Environmental Education or Education for Sustainable Development were selected for analysis. However, the sample excluded those that were written in any language other than English. Some were written in Afrikaans, which I could not understand.
Because I was interested only in trends in post-graduate Environmental Education research in South African higher education institutions, I further selected studies whose contexts were South African.
4.4.3 Data collection process and methods
As indicated above, data for this study was gathered from the M. Ed and PhD theses and dissertations produced from the two HEIs during the period 1995 to 2004. This section outlines the processes that were followed in gaining access to this kind of data. As the study is unobtrusive, it was important that careful ethical processes were followed. These were mainly accommodated by the Project on Postgraduate Education Research as indicated below.
4.4.3.1 Negotiating access to the institutions
99
This section describes the process of gaining access to the institutions for the collection of data for the PPER. Because this study drew its data from the PPER, I felt that this process needed to be explained.
According to Wagiet (1997) negotiating access is a two-fold process that involves gaining access to the institutions as well as to their inner subjectively constructed worlds which requires compliance with a number of ethical considerations. The process of data collection for the PPER involved negotiating access through different gatekeepers of the institutions concerned. First, letters were written and sent (through emails) to the Deans of faculties of Education and to the librarians, outlining the aims and purpose of the PPER and asking for their participation through permitting students in the PPER to make copies of sections of theses in their libraries. In cases where the Deans and librarians were not responding to the emails, phone calls followed.
All the eleven institutions were willing to take part and were pleasingly cooperative. The briefs that were sent to the Deans of faculties also indicated the intention to interview some of the supervisors of those theses, where they were still in the institutions concerned. Interviews were not done on the first round of data collection but at a later stage after having captured data from the theses. Data from interviews, as indicated above, was not used for this particular study.
100