The school management consists of the principal (White female), vice principal (White male) and 3 heads of departments (all White females).
The school is adequately sized and consists of two teaching blocks, three floors each, one housing the Foundation Phase (grades R to 3) and the other accommodating the larger Senior Phase (grades 4 to 7). There is one grade R class, two grade 1 and 2 classes, four grade 3 classes and three grades 4, 5, 6 and 7 classes. Each class roughly accommodates between 28-34 learners. The school is very well resourced with a computer lab, large hall, two sick bay areas, two aftercare rooms, gender specific bathrooms on each floor and a separate administration wing (that includes a fully-fledged kitchen, staff room, offices, and foyer). Each classroom has a smart board and each educator, a PC. Further, the school has a separate computer lab for educators as well as a printing room. Ladybug Primary offers a wide variety of extra-curricular activities, some of which include soccer, cricket, netball, rugby, and swimming. Sporting facilities include a large swimming pool, cricket pitch, netball court and a large athletic field.
Physical Education or PE is carried out by two coaches and educators only assist with after school sport specific to certain terms in the school year.
Although the school premises are well maintained by two maintenance men, the littering of school grounds due to learners was a concern for the management and thus, the tuck- shop was closed and is now only available during large school events. During my time spent conducting my research, I was met with a diverse group of teachers, who mostly were welcoming and eager to be part of my research. Therefore, this site was optimal for my research as it allowed me access to a diverse group of accommodating educators in order to understand their perceptions and understandings of gender diverse individuals. I will now discuss the steps and procedures that I undertook to ensure my desired participants and research objectives.
Etikan et al. (2016) explain convenient sampling as non-random or non-probability sampling as the researcher chooses certain participants from a target population due to several reasons.
Some of these include easy accessibility for the researcher, availability of the participants, geographical location, and willingness of participation (Etikan et al., 2016). In the specific case of my research, I started with convenient sampling of participants as the research site was close to my home and the school had more than my required quota of participants, which was 30 educators. Further, I recruited participants based on their availability and willingness to participate in the study.
However, as I spent time at the school and interacted with the educators, my sampling method shifted towards purposive sampling. My interactions and tentative questioning with the teachers regarding transgender identities revealed that some individuals had a better general knowledge or even some sort of knowledge on the term and topic, while other conversations revealed that some teachers were not familiar with the term at all. Hence, I recruited mostly teachers who were both willing and has some sort of familiarity with non-conforming gender identities. I established this familiarity regarding transgender identities by holding very informal conversations about the topic with possible participants. In these conversations, I asked teachers about what they thought the term transgender means, or how they interpret the term. Some teachers though it meant the same as being a transvestite, while others considered a transgender person to be gay or lesbian. I attempted to interview teachers who had a more informed perception of the term transgender. Purposive sampling allows for the purposive choosing of information-rich participants to provide the most appropriate, relevant information on the phenomenon (transgender) being studied (Palinkas, et al., 2015). Within purposive sampling, the researcher can select the participants who would be best capable to deliver rich, comprehensive data (Cohen et al., 2011). A sample of thirty teachers that was purposively recruited in my study was important to my research as it allowed me to gain perspectives on the various understandings and factors that shaped these perceptions, regarding transgender identities, of a diverse group of primary school teachers.
After gaining written consent from the school principal to conduct my research, I gathered all 35 teachers in the school hall and explained the topic, nature, and ethical considerations of my specific research study. I then proceeded to verbally enquire as to who was willing to be a participant in the study and handed out participant consent forms to all 35 educators.
Although my wish was to have an even number of participants with regards to gender, race and
I had no control over those teachers who did not wish to be part of the study, as participation was voluntary and consensual. After about a week of me coming to the school, 22 consent forms from some of the teachers were returned to me. After talking to those teachers who initially accepted the consent forms and had not returned them to me, 8 said that they either lost them or forgot to return them and thus returned them within a few days after. Five of the teachers declined being part of the study citing reasons such as being too old to understand anything about transgender, not comfortable being recorded, while some stated they would only do the interviews if no other teachers came forward. Subsequently, I recruited 30 teachers for my study, this number of participants being sufficient in order to gain rich and insightful data (Etikan et al., 2016).
When conducting the interviews, the recording times varied quite differently. I can only explain this by stating that some teachers had more ideas, opinions, and perceptions about the topic. In these instances, teachers spoke more than others, despite me attempting to use prompt questioning for those participants who spoke less.
Further to note, although the ages of the participants were further varied, I did not note any data to suggest any findings highlighted significant differences in views regarding diverse gender identities and age of participants .