This section discusses the validity and ethical issues that have been dealt with in this study.
Validity issues
Validity in quantitative studies focuses on how valid or true the data is, how reliable the data is by its replicability or generalisability to the greater population (Winter, 2000). The results can be replicated and the same results in another research can be reached so generalizability
84 can be guaranteed. However, this is a qualitative study and depth rather than generalizability is advocated. Instead of generalization, transferability can be used (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Transferability refers to findings and conclusions that can be applied to other similar case studies (Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013; Polit & Beck, 2012; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A qualitative study will do this if readers can associate the results with their own experiences (Cope, 2014). Sufficient information on the phenomenon and findings was provided in this thesis to enable the reader to assess whether the findings were transferable.
Qualitative research instead concerns itself with the experiences and meanings individual people give to issues which will be different from one another (Winter, 2000). A smaller sample was used as generalizability was not an issue. Qualitative research recognizes that lives of people are being researched so contradictions and opposing truths are inevitable (Whittemore, Chase & Mandle, 2001; Winter, 2000). So, there will not be a single truth. Therefore applying validity factors of quantitative studies would not be applicable in qualitative studies.
Patton (1990) recognizes that qualitative data should be creative but at the same time it has to be rigorous and explicit. Therefore terms such as credibility and authenticity were coined by Lincoln and Guba (1985) to ensure there is an accurate interpretation of the meaning of the data. Credibility was guaranteed by giving the participants the transcriptions to read so as to verify the data. Credibility refers to the truth in the views of the participants and how truthful the interpretation and representation of them by the researcher (Polit & Beck, 2012). Credibility was enhanced by the researcher describing her experiences as a researcher with critical readers and verifying the research findings with the participants (Cope, 2014). This is called member checking (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Whiting, 2008). Authenticity is the accurate portrayal of experiences and meanings as lived and perceived by participants (Cohen, Manion
& Morrison, 2011; King, 1994; Sandelowki, 1986). The researcher had to make a conscious effort to keep her opinions and views separate from that of the participants so as not to cloud the data and to make it as authentic as possible. Furthermore, participants were asked to read the transcripts of their responses before interpretation of the results were done.
Integrity is also important in qualitative research. Integrity is the ability of the researcher to be self-critical at all levels of the research (Johnson, 1999; Lather, 1986). This was done by continuously checking interpretations so that they would be an accurate rendition of findings.
85 Vividness can be guaranteed by the thick descriptions of data to present the essence of the data (Ambert, Adler, Adler & Detzner, 1995). The researcher utilised thick descriptions so as to give an accurate rendition of the participant’s view in each case. Thoroughness deals with making relevant themes and developing these ideas (Eisenhart & Howe, 1992). This will be brought out more fully in the data analysis chapter.
An essential factor to consider in research is triangulation, which is generally used in quantitative research. Triangulation is the use of multiple methods to verify data (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Hesse-Biber & Leary, 2011; Yin, 2009; Brown, 2008; Creswell, 2008; Tellis, 1997). The verification would be applicable to a quantitative study and the aim of this research was not to verify data to guarantee validity but rather to get depth and something more from each of the data collection methods. Rather it would be called data saturation as it would allow the researcher to get depth in the data (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007; Patton, 1990). Brown (2008) and Yin (2003) stress that using multiple sources of data enables the researcher to cover more issues but they also share the view that this approach leads to converging lines of enquiry as in triangulation. These converging lines of inquiry will not be relevant in this study, although noted, but the aim for this study is depth rather than verification.
The use of triangulation is to check if different methods have the same findings, which will increase the validity of the results (Greene, 2007). That is not what this research aims to do and the statement above would work well within the quantitative perspective of objectivity and truth. Instead the methods will be used to “capture alternative and multiple perspectives on social reality” (Hesse-Biber, 2011, p. 52). The researcher wished to ascertain the contradictions and conflicting arguments that teachers have about their work and to discover how each teacher confronted the challenges about their work situations when implementing a new curriculum. There would be different realities for each of them so instead data saturation using multiple data methods, will be adhered to.
Different types of validity have been described by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011); Hesse- Biber and Leary (2011); Winter (2000) and Lather (1993; 1986). For this study, however, just three of these types of validity will be described as they are applicable to this study. This study gave detailed descriptions of participants’ views to highlight experiences and contradictions.
This is called voluptuous validity by Lather (1993) as the thick descriptions show interaction
86 with the data. Reflexivity is evident as there is engagement with the findings through interpretation and questioning of findings (Lather, 1993). This abundance of thick descriptions that is denoted by voluptuous validity, allowed for reduction of bias and at the same time the researcher’s engagement with the findings related how interpretation took place. Therefore, the researcher’s intentions were made clear as to how data was to be engaged with in Section four of this chapter.
The next type of validity is construct validity. Construct validity is the confrontation with the social realities of participants through methods used to show sufficient detail to ensure believable and credible accounts of their experiences and opinions (Yilmaz, 2013; Yin, 2009;
Meyer, 2001; Tellis, 1997; Lather, 1993). These accounts are tested against theory by continuous interaction between the theories used and the data collected (Yin, 2009; Meyer, 2001; Tellis, 1997). This was performed by continuously checking with participants using the researcher’s interpretations to see if she had their views correctly interpreted and then checking against theories for this study to find similarities and contradictions. These contradictions, Lenzo (1995) and Lather (1986) classify as theoretical impositions that a theoretically guided research has. These contradictions will, according to Lather (1993), actually illuminate and enhance social theories.
The third type of validity that was used in this study is catalytic validity. “Catalytic validity is the degree the research process re-orients, focuses and energises participants in conscientisation” (Lather, 1986, p. 67). This was the focus of this study. There was a need to create awareness in the participants of their job stresses and for them to come to a realisation of the causes for their work intensification. Knowing and realising the reality of their work situations would assist them to create a determination to overcome the odds through their participation in this research (Lather, 1986). In this way, the aim of this study was that the awareness that participants exhibit will empower them to change their oppressed situations (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Lather, 1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Therefore, each method and the choice of questions used in this study was orientated towards awareness of and thereby transformation as well as a deep understanding of the work stresses influenced by curriculum change in a South African classroom. Validity is therefore about political issues
87 rather than just about following the correct procedure (Moss, Phillips, Erickson, Floden, Lather
& Schneider, 2009).
Case studies have their own rigour and validity. According to Flyvbjerg (2011) and Yin (2009) one criticism of case studies are that they are not generalisable to the greater population and do not enable scientific generalisations. Yin (2009) does give an adequate explanation for that as he argues that the goal of a case study is to expand and generalise theories and not to show frequencies by generalisations. Therefore the theories are to be better understood and expanded rather than to generalise the findings to the greater population. A case study helps to get an in- depth understanding of the phenomenon and the theory propositions rather than just explain the causal relationships that scientific research demands. Another deficiency discussed by Flyvbjerg (2011) is that case studies allow more for the researcher’s subjectivity than any other qualitative method. Yet it has been found that case studies have their own rigour (Flyvbjerg, 2011) very similar to Popper’s (1926) theory of falsification and verification. So the pre- conceived notions that researchers have will be tested by participants’ views of the phenomenon. Case study researchers generally work within the context being studied and this, according to Flyvbjerg (2011), will show a greater bias towards falsification of pre-conceived notions rather than verification. Therefore, the falsification will actually lead to richness of the problem rather than a challenge that cannot be met. This conflict and diversity of opinions from the participants will therefore add different dimensions to the case. Another criticism made is that case studies result in massive, unreadable data (Yin, 2009). A rebuttal to that is that case studies do not rely on just one data collection method but uses a collection of data methods (Yin, 2009) which helps towards triangulation of data thus giving depth to the study. This will lead to overall trustworthiness of the data.
Visual methods have their own rigour. By providing details in the drawings, participants enhanced the comprehension of the data. The more explicit the visual drawings are about the phenomenon being investigated, the more trustworthy they are (Weber, 2008). Furthermore, using novice artists, as was done in the study, lent credibility to the study. Methods using novices provide authenticity and credibility that professional drawings cannot achieve (Weber, 2008). In the semi-structured interviews the researcher had to be as neutral as possible so no bias prevailed (Harret & Bradley, 2009). This would have influenced the data as participants
88 would have responded in the way that they felt the researcher would want them to. Furthermore, the researcher had to be wary of social cues such as excessive nodding (Harret & Bradley, 2009) so that participants would not deem that that was what was required of them. Also asking different participants the same questions improved the quality of the data as it allowed cross- checking and comparing data as well as to give a broader picture of the data (Diefenbach, 2009). Furthermore, interview transcripts were returned to participants to verify and validate participants' meanings. Biases were kept to a minimum by constructing good questions (Tellis, 1997) that were checked by critical readers. Audio-taping the semi-structured interviews and video-taping the focus group interviews allowed the researcher to get trustworthy data.
Questions and possible probes were decided on before the focus group interview. This allowed the researcher to elicit information and clarify points in the participants' favour (Creswell, 2008).
A lot of thought and preparation was undertaken to ensure trustworthiness of the study.
Ethical issues
Using case studies to study current phenomena in real life contexts involve working with human subjects (Yin, 2009). As such, sensitivity and care had to be involved in conducting this research. Therefore, the informed consent of all participants was obtained prior to the participation in the study. The university’s stringent rules and strict guidelines made sure that all ethical procedures were in place before data collection took place. Sanjari, Bahramnezhad, Fomani, Shoghi and Cheraghi (2014) advocate developing specific guidelines so that ethics are adhered to which will also ensure trustworthiness of data collected because there will be no evidence of deceit on the part of the researcher. Participants were guaranteed confidentiality by using pseudonyms in the thesis as well as in any other publications and conference proceedings resulting from this thesis. True anonymity cannot be guaranteed but every effort was made to ensure anonymise. True anonymity can only exist if a participant’s identity cannot be linked by the data even by the researcher (Whiting, 2009). By using pseudonyms there was no linking of participants to data but pseudonyms were coined by the researcher with permission from the participants. Consequently, it was known to whom the pseudonyms belonged to. Using focus group interview will not guarantee complete confidentiality but all participants were asked to respect the confidentiality of other participants. Permission for visual
89 drawings to be used in the thesis was obtained from participants. The publication of such drawings that may identify the participant is not ethical (Banks, 2007). However, as the visual representations are non-professional drawings done by novices, it would be difficult to identify such drawings and the participant as well.
Participants were protected from any harm including deception in this study (Yin, 2009) by giving details of the study to them in the consent form. All possible risks were outlined in the informed consent form. Furthermore, participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time before, during or even after the data had been collected and the data would not be used in the study. Originally there were six participants in the study. All had signed the informed consent form. However, when participants were contacted to enquire about possible times to meet, one participant felt that he would not have time to meet with the researcher and decided to drop out of the study. Therefore, this study consisted of five participants rather than six. This did not make a difference to the study as four to six participants were originally projected for the study and having five met the needs of the study.
Permission to audio-tape and videotape the interviews were obtained prior to the data collection. However, before data was collected the participants were informed about confidentiality, voluntary participation and opting out of the research as well as if they still felt comfortable with audio-taping the semi-structured interviews and video-taping the focus group interview. Reasons and results of the research were clarified with participants before data collection was done. Participants were assured via the letter of consent and during introduction to the interviews, that data would remain secure during the duration of the study and after the thesis was written, the data would be kept in a steel cupboard at the university for five years and then it would be incinerated.
90