4.7 Data generation methods
4.7.1 Semi-structured interview
Scholars concur that interviews are amongst the primary sources of case study information (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Hictchcock & Hudges, 1989; Le Compte & Preissle, 1993; Bogdan
& Biklen, 1992; Kvale, 1996; De Vos, 2002; Henning, Van Rensburg & Smit, 2004;
Stylianaou, 2008; Yin, 2009; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007; 2011). Due to the limited nature of this study, the researcher will not delve into different kinds of interviews. Suffice to indicate that interviews take different forms as outlined in literatures (Le Compte & Preissle, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Kvale, 1996; Henning, Van Rensburg
& Smit, 2004; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007; 2011). The key features of this type of interview are that it is interactive, and it uses a range of probes and techniques to achieve depth in soliciting the answers. The process of interviewing is generative as new knowledge is created. The interviews are conducted face to face with interviewees. Different types of questions are used to achieve the purpose of getting in depth information. The types of questions may include content mapping, dimension and perspective widening questions. As the interview process unfolded, it became iterative (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). The structure is provided by the interview schedule with a list of issues to be covered (Thomas, 2011). The second part of the research was a semi-structured interview with the school principals concerning the use, benefits and challenges of systems thinking in school development. The responses of the participants were recorded using a dictaphone and transcribed. The open coding system was used (Strauss & Corbin, 1999).
141
For empirical data, primary data were collected. According to Cooper and Schindler (2008), primary data entails the opinions of participants on what they know, believe and experience and such data used for the closeness to the topic. For the gathering of primary data, I decided on starting with semi-structured interviews. At each of the case study schools, the principal was the research participant who was interviewed. The other method that I used to gather the data from the participant, were the focus discussion groups and use of diaries and journals for reflection.
The semi-structured interview questions were designed to allow the participants to settle and open up the dialogue and trust the researcher. I gathered data by means of interviews using the prepared schedule of questions. These semi-structured interviews also allowed me to engage the participant by probing for more information to seek more data and also to seek further clarifications on some issues. The wording of the questions allowed the participants to provide answers based on their understanding of the questions and also consideration of the context and the unique experiences of the respondents. The questions were deliberately phrased to allow the participant to flow in reflecting on the questions being posed. The questions were also phrased differently with the consideration of the context and milieu of the participant. Participants were interviewed in their school contexts in order to allow for freedom of expression and reflection of the environment from which they operate.
I asked the respondents by probing further some issues for clarity and elaboration (Taylor &
Bogdan, 1998; Hitchcock& Hughes, 1989).The interview guides were not followed to the latter as the interviewer noted that some of the issues were covered in by the responses.
Blanche and Durrheim (1999) argue that naturalistic inquiry is non-manipulative, unobtrusive and a non-controlling form of qualitative research that is open to whatever emerges in the research setting. The co-authors believe that this approach in qualitative research is holistic, with the aim of investigating the complex system of interrelationships that develops in particular situations.
The questions required participants to provide factual responses regarding their work in school development, how they used the systems thinking approach in their schools, the
142
unique experiences of participants in approaching school development and the unique achievements of participants in school development. Participants were required to describe their understanding of systems thinking, describe in their unique ways, their use of the approach in school development and the benefits and achievements attributed to school development. This approach, in many ways, guided the participants on the understanding, use, benefits, and challenges of systems thinking to school development and could be identified with the functionalist and interpretive paradigmatic orientations to systems thinking. Within the interview guide the participants also generated the meaning of systems thinking, which can be attributed to the constructivist paradigm.
143 4.7.2 Focus groups discussions
This approach allows the people to be formally and informally interviewed in a group discussion sort of setting (Neuman, 2006). In this case these are respondents whom are known to have more or less similar experiences that need to be shared (Maura, 2008). In this setting a particular topic is discussed under the facilitation of the researcher with the intended outcome of eliciting data (Cohen, et al., 2007). There is a strong belief that participants feel more empowered to share in focus discussion groups (Neuman, 2006). Another benefit is that more data tends to be generated, as compared to individual interviews (Babbie, 2004; Leedy
& Ormond, 2005; Smithson, 2008). In other areas where there are less knowledgeable participants, the latter also learn from the more informed team members (Grenier, 1998).
With active facilitation of the discussion there is much ease of ending up with large volumes of data in an economical way (Kreuger, 1998; Langhill, 1999; Marshal & Rossman, 1999;
Punch, 2004). The identified weakness is when the facilitator finds difficulty in controlling infighting within the group. In some circles there may be dominant individuals who hog the discussion, which may negatively impact on the output of the discussion (Krueger, 1998;
Bryman, 2004; Welman, Kruger & Mitchell, 2005). The other dynamics which may be at play could be the cultural, language, social, gender and religious barriers hindering the free flow of the discussion.
There is a strong view that the size needs to be able to allow participation by all the members without compromising reasonable representation and active participation (Morgan &
Scannell, 1998; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Maura, 2008). The focus group, as a special qualitative research technique, is a selection of a small group of people which can comprise 4-12 people. The data eliciting tool used in this study was a focus group which can be defined as ―a way of collecting qualitative data, which-essentially-involves engaging a small number of people in an informal group discussion (or discussions), ‗focused‘ around a particular topic or set of issues‖ (Abedinia, et al., 2012). In the focus group, the participants believed that, in addition to class and group discussions, writing reflective journals was also an opportunity for dialogue with the teacher since he would carefully comment on their ideas and invite them to continue the dialogue through written comments.
144
The group is gathered to discuss a few issues in sessions which can be 45-90 minutes long.
The moderator of the group needs to be non-directive and in a position to facilitate free, open discussion. He or she does not dominate the discussion (Neuman, 2009). The five principals met as a focus group in one session were questioned on the understanding, the use of systems thinking to school development and the challenges thereof. The focus group members told their stories on their experiences as principals who were working in different school contexts on how the benefits and challenges of using systems thinking to school development. The principals expressed their feelings, experiences much better than a focus group than in one on one interviews.
The questions that were posed during the interview sessions were of varied nature as listed in Table 4.1 of Chapter Four. The participants were probed on this theme, regarding the use of systems thinking. The researcher spent two sessions with each participant as part of the probing on this research and in order to gather thick data on this aspect. The documents were checked for purposes of analysis and triangulation. The documents that are listed in Table 5.4 of Chapter Five are those which were checked in order to verify the claims that were made by the participants regarding the use of systems thinking in school development.
145 4.7.3 Reflective journals / diaries
Reflection may be conducted for purposes of professional development by using diaries and journals. The engagement in professional development programmes becomes a process of reflection and reflective learning in which journals and diaries are used as a media of reflective writing (Rudge & Howe, 2009; Degago, 2007; Chirema, 2007; Tang, 2002;
Conner-Greene, 2000; Woodward, 1998). Studies support the idea that reflective journal writing enhances reflection, critical thinking, integration of theory with practice, and promotes professional growth (Farrah, 2012; Faizah, 2008; Tangen & Mercer, 2012; Lee, 2007; Jacelon & Imperio, 2005; Eyler, Giles, Stenson, Gray, 2001). However, other studies indicate a number of challenges that are encountered in the process of engaging in reflective practice (Greiman & Covington, 2007). Studies demonstrate that diaries can be used as tools for data collection in qualitative research (Hewitt, 2015; Chirema, 2007; Jacelon & Imperio, 2005).
As a critical and interpretive study, reflective exercises will be conducted with principals in order to track progress, keep record in terms of the process, benefits and challenges on the use of systems thinking (Hopkins, Beresford & West, 1998). Reflective exercises promote dialogue amongst participants and explore the hidden assumptions, intentions and mental models in order to encourage a shift and transformation and reorientation of the way participants will think about school development (Hopkins (2002). Studies have highlighted both positive and negative findings on the use reflective journal. Tangen and Mercer (2012) observed their student teachers moving from merely responding, to prompts to reconstructing and reasoning, for example, through including theoretical supports. Reflective diary writing functions as a platform for learners to express their feelings towards certain assignments which indirectly encourages them to practice writing in a non-threatening environment.
It involves solving skills, higher order reasoning, integrative thinking, goal-setting Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, (2001) for course instructors and learners (Rudge & Howe, 2009).
Different studies have shown that student teachers sometimes find it difficult to write journals without clear guidelines. Some of the participants in Greiman and Covington‘s (2007) study believed they should have been given more specific instructions and strategies for writing
146
reflections. Teachers in Martin‘s (2005) research also considered structured support for writing reflective journals at early stages useful.
The process of recording data commenced immediately the interview started. I also took notes of summary notes of responses as the interview progressed. The large portion of the data was recorded, as I could not cope with note taking at the same time, whilst listening attentively to the responses. Editing is not necessarily a linear process, it iterative. It involved a number of steps to ensure that data gathered is analysed accordingly (Verd, 2004).
The construction of reality began at the level of listening and wring up the recorded responses verbatim (Flick, 1998).
The whole process of data management encapsulated data gathering by means of the instruments, storage, and retrieval to ensure high quality accessible data. After processing the recorded data, I repeatedly listened and transcribed the responses. Thenafter, I carefully read the transcriptions and spent time listening and re-reading the transcriptions. This process was followed by the search for emerging themes or patterns until I got a sense and understanding of the whole data (Huberman & Miles, 1998; Taylor & Bogman, 1998). A list of topics emerged as a pattern from the transcriptions. Themes were further broken down into categories and labeled and coded for their peculiarity and uniqueness (Creswell, 1998). The data belonging to various sub-categories was subsequently assembled and descriptions made of it. The goal was to reduce the data to make it manageable for interpretation, and to summarise it into themes in order to get a greater clarity and unambiguity (Flick, 1998; Bloor et al., 2001). The process is neither a linear and mechanical process, rather an inductive process of trying to make sense of the data.