List of Tables
Chapter 5: Research Design and Methods
5.6.3 Strategies and techniques for legal analysis
A number of strategies and techniques were used for legal analysis of the doctrinal component of the study.
Once statutes and case law were obtained the researcher searched for issues in statutes and case law – reported and unreported that speak to the data collected in the field. The researcher compared and contrasted the views of study participants with sections of statutes and judicial reasoning in case reports. In other words, the researcher used legal analysis to evaluate the extent to which perceptions of members of society are consistent or inconsistent with statutes and case law related to domestic violence.
5.7 Reliability and Validity in Mixed Methods Research
Quantitative and qualitative research designs have different aims and approaches, some of which are discussed above. Likewise, each research design carries different ontological and epistemological outlooks.
Therefore, establishing reliability and validity for each research design also varies. According to Glesne and Peshkin (1992:6, 7), quantitative research uses the positivist worldview whereby facts are observed and measured to substantiate an objective reality. Golafshani (2003:599) points out that, on the one hand, reliability in quantitative research revolves around whether the result is replicable and if the findings are generalisable to a given population. Lewis and Richie (2003:271) argue “that reliability is generally understood to be concerned with the replicability of the research findings and whether or not they would be repeated if another study, using the same or similar methods, was undertaken”. However there is concern that the idea of replicability is naïve; the study can never be, nor should it be, repeated. On the other hand, Golafshani (2003:599) explains that validity enquires into “whether the means of measurement are accurate and whether they are actually measuring what they are intended to measure”.
5-152
In contrast, reliability in qualitative research is concerned with elements of credibility, dependability, conformability, transferability and authenticity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985:289-331). Taken together, these elements imply a focus on the trustworthiness of qualitative research in terms of reliability and validity (Elo, Kääriäinen, Kanste, Pölkki, Utriainen and Kyngä 2014:2; Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 289-331). Lincoln and Guba (1985:316) note that, in qualitative research, the demonstration of validity is tantamount to establishing reliability. In breaking down the elements of the trustworthiness of a qualitative study, credibility means accurately identifying and describing the study participants. According to Tracy (2010:843-844), the credibility of qualitative studies can be achieved through description (where the research shows rather than tells occurrences); triangulation through multiple sources of evidence, theoretical frames and multiple types of data analysis. Tracy (2010:845) adds multivocality as a component of credibility which means that the multiple and varied voices of respondents are presented and analysed in the study.
Turning to dependability, Yin (2009:116, 120-122) and Arthur and Nazroo (2003:132) suggest a number of data collection and analysis tools to ensure the dependability of a study such as the development of a case study database including field notes, narratives from respondents, tabular material collected from the site under study, and multiple sources of evidence. Conformability is concerned with objectivity by presenting data with “potential for congruence between two or more independent people about data’s accuracy, relevance or meaning” (Elo et al, 2014:2). Transferability of findings is more appropriate in a qualitative study while statistical generalisation of findings is appropriate for quantitative studies. Tracy (2010:846) argues that transferability and naturalistic generalisation can result from qualitative studies, suggesting that knowledge generated by case studies can be useful in similar settings, populations and circumstances. It is the reader who decides on transferability and naturalistic generalisation based on the thick description provided by the researcher through the voices of the respondents. Although statistical generalisation is unhelpful for qualitative research, Yin (2009:15) contends that case studies allow the researcher to expand and generalise theories from the findings; this is known as analytic generalisation. With regard to the authenticity of qualitative research, Bower, Aboloafia and Carr (2000:374) explain that two implied questions are raised: ‘has the author been there in the field?’ and ‘has the researcher faithfully represented the local experience he or she encountered?’ To ensure that these questions are raised a researcher should detail field experiences, set out their theoretical and conceptual predispositions and provide a chain of evidence reiterative with data interpretation (Bower, et al, 2000:375).
With reference to public administration research, Bower et al (2000:374) identify plausibility and criticality as important components of qualitative methods. Plausibility can be achieved by “working to establish a connection to the reader, seeking to provide a story that is neither too fantastic nor irrelevant or trivial”
5-153
(Bower et al, 2000:379). Criticality involves qualitative research that enables illumination and understanding of public governance issues that facilitate different viewpoints from both participants and readers which by extension can lead to alternative policy actions (Bower et al, 2000:382). Scholars agree that triangulation of sources of data and modes of data analysis generate reliability and validity in mixed methods research (Golafshani, 2003:599; Baxter and Jack, 2009:603-604; Richie et al, 2003:43; Yin, 2009:116).
In terms of reliability and validity of the quantitative component, this study used a pre-existing database of statistics. Rather than seeking to replicate a study or generalise the findings through the collection of primary data by means of a survey, secondary statistics on the number, type and disposition of cases handled by CBPs at each CAO during the years 2009 to 2011 were used. The instrument used to supply and maintain the database is a case intake report that each CBP must submit to the CCJD head office. Statistics from the case intake forms are then input into the database by a CCJD employee. The instrument (attached as Appendix C) is believed to be valid in that it measures what it is designed to measure – the number, type and disposition of cases handled by CBPs at a given CAO. The data were analysed to answer the questions raised in the literature on CRJ, and its effectiveness and appropriateness in domestic violence cases handled by CBPs. The data were analysed to determine the role paralegals are playing in resolving legal problems and thereby contributing to the unclogging of congested court rolls.
Insofar as reliability and validity of the qualitative component of the study are concerned, the researcher followed the above delineated steps to ensure trustworthiness. The qualitative data reveal the perceptions of the paralegals that participated in the study and community members who were the recipients of the paralegals’ services. The matrix analysis presented in the case study chapters, illustrates the researcher’s efforts to maintain and interpret narrative from the study participants.
5.8 Ethical Considerations
According to Lewis (2003:66), any research study raises ethical considerations. Lewis adds that participants must consent to participate in the study (p. 66). The participants were given information on the purpose of the study, how it will be used and the study topic. Participants were informed at the beginning of the interviews and focus groups that ethical procedures require that informants consent to participate in the study and sign a consent form (Teddlie and Tashakori, 2009:199). The consent form included a clause on confidentiality and anonymity. Lewis (2003:67) contends that “anonymity and confidentiality must be made clear to study participants. Anonymity means that the identity of those taking part will not being known outside the research team”. While this protects focus group participants, the interview participants’
5-154
anonymity can be guaranteed because their names are linked to the institutions; as the institutions are one of the units of analysis in this study, their names are not mentioned. Lewis (2003:67) explains that confidentiality means avoiding the attribution of comments, in reports or presentations, to identified participants. This means that archiving some forms of data such as audio recordings will compromise anonymity and confidentiality (Lewis, 2003:68). According to Lewis (2003:68), in any study it is important to consider the ways in which participation might be harmful to the respondents and to take evasive action.
He indicates that “this arises most clearly in studies on sensitive topics which might uncover painful experiences and lead people to disclose information which they have rarely or never previously shared”.
In this study, consent forms were read aloud and explained to participants. While participants were informed as to how their anonymity and confidentiality would be protected, as Lewis (2003:67) points out above, this could be a difficult feat to achieve for CBPs. However, CBPs indicated that their names could be used as they want their activities in CRJ to be known. Participants were further informed of their right to withdraw from participation in the study at any time during the research process. Protocols in place by the University of KwaZulu-Natal were followed and the ethical clearance letter issued.
5.9 Limitations of the Study
Creswell (2009:215) observes that mixed methods data collection does present limitations; methodologically
“unequal evidence within a study” is produced, “which may be a disadvantage when interpreting the final results”. Hancock et al (2007:7) note that the choice of a research focus and methodology also result in limitations. This study suffered some limitations, which are acknowledged here.
The study’s research design provided in-depth, rich data on the experiences of women from KZN’s rural areas. However, the sample was restricted to 24 women. Hancoch et al (2007:7) observe that one of the limitations of qualitative studies is that the results of the study may not be generalisable to a larger population if the sample is small and the participants are not randomly selected. This research study sought insight into CBPs in KZN, not the whole country and CAOs that are supported by the CCJD, not all CAOs in the country; hence the small sample.
According to Yin (2009: 53), a multiple case study can require extensive resources and time beyond the means of a single student. Therefore, the decision to undertake multiple case studies should not be taken lightly. Yin (2009:72) points out that the researcher might be influenced in selecting the case study in order to advocate for a particular cause. This might be true in this study because CBPs’ work is currently not
5-155
statutorily recognised. However, Yin (2009:72) suggests that one test of such bias is the degree to which the researcher is open to contrary findings, to which the researcher is open.
The key strength of this study is the understanding and insight that emerged with respect to rural women’s experience with CRJ and CBPs in the context of cases of domestic violence. However, the researcher has been involved with CCJD and CAOs for seventeen years and had therefore interacted with the paralegals prior to the study; therefore the results may be influenced by the researcher’s personal biases. To offset this potential bias, the researcher tried to preserve the narrative of paralegals and of service recipients. In addition, the researcher focused upon using experience with the paralegal sector to interpret narrative (Maanen, Sørensen and Mitchell, 2007:1148) in an effort to help build theory from practice.
The researcher’s presence during data gathering, which is often unavoidable in qualitative research, might have affected the participants’ responses. For example, Creswell (2009:34), points out that a limitation of mixed method research is that it provides indirect information filtered through the views of interviewees and that the researcher’s presence in a focus group may give rise to biased responses. As a result the researcher spent time explaining to CBPs and focus group participants that this study is an academic inquiry connected to doctoral thesis research and not a measure of performance of CBPs. The researcher also tried to generate a relaxed environment for study participants so that they could ‘speak their minds’. Multiple sources of evidence and triangulation helped minimise any impact on the findings.
While archival records can be used in conjunction with other sources of information to produce a case study, Yin (2009:106) notes that caution should be exercised in using such records as, like any documentation, they were produced for a specific purpose and specific audience other than the case study; these conditions must be fully appreciated in interpreting the usefulness and accuracy of the records. As CCJD data is collected in the field and captured by different people, it is possible that errors may occur. However, the paper records of the paralegals that participated in the study verified the quantitative data collected by the CCJD.
There was a possibility of bias in the paralegals’ involvement of announcing the upcoming study to focus group participants. There is a risk that the paralegals might publicise the study to those who would describe CBP work in a positive light. It was therefore important to compare the data from the focus groups with the quantitative data in order to establish whether or not they corresponded.
Furthermore, another limitation is that the study involved multiple case studies; the volume of data made analysis and interpretation time consuming and at times overwhelming.
5-156
Yet another limitation is that the study did not consider men’s experiences in the process of restorative justice and their opinions on the role of CBPs in access to justice. The inclusion of men who participated in the restorative justice process would have provided a balance to the research findings. The semi-structured interviews addressed some of these limitations due to their flexibility; responses were followed up and non- verbal information provided further understanding of these responses (Creswell, 2009: 32).
In some scholarly circles the inability to generalise findings from studies that are mainly qualitative in approach is considered a limitation. A small sample size is more likely to yield information on individuals’
experiences and perceptions than generalisable findings on CBPs. However, the theoretical propositions derived from comparative case studies allow for analytical generalisation (Yin, 2009:15). Therefore, findings may be transferable to women seeking access to justice with regard to domestic violence in other rural areas.
Available relevant literature mostly relates to CBPs’ general work and not specifically to the interaction between CBPs and CRJ or the impact of the DVA on CBPs and CRJ. This is a limitation. Yet, findings from this study and dissemination of knowledge produced may help to fill this gap in the literature.
5.10 Chapter Summary
This study adopted a socio-legal approach in its research design, in order to combine an analysis of statutory law and case law with social science mixed methods. The study employed a mixed methods research design that was more heavily inclined to the qualitative paradigm. By using this research design, the research results are more likely to show the complexity of the interactive nexus between access to justice, plural legal systems, community restorative justice, community-based paralegals and domestic violence cases.
This chapter showed that the researcher combined descriptive statistics on the types and outcomes of cases handled by paralegals with the social processes of the role of CBPs in CRJ demonstrated through narrative;
together, this combination illuminates the interaction between the CBPs, CRJ and the DVA. This secondary data placed the experience of women in a broader context.
This chapter explained the integration of the pragmatic and the advocacy participatory worldviews employed in this study. The pragmatic worldview approach assisted the researcher to examine the views and perceptions of CBPs and victims of domestic violence. A pragmatic worldview was appropriate because it allowed the researcher to use a mixed methods approach and to draw liberally from qualitative and quantitative assumptions in conducting the research. This helped the researcher to understand what the truth might look like, and which restorative justice approaches work or do not work in cases of domestic violence.
5-157
Interpretive principles were incorporated in the study; these helped the researcher to understand the underlying factors influencing the choices made by survivors of violence. The information contributed by the participants enlightened the researcher on their situation in accessing justice. The voices of the respondents substantiates the advocacy-participatory worldview. The researcher subscribed to an action agenda by providing a voice for CBPs and raising awareness of the role they play in CRJ. The advocacy and participatory worldview provided a platform for participants to articulate what works at grassroots level and what changes can be introduced in restorative justice practice.
In this chapter it was indicated that the study adopted a descriptive, exploratory and explanatory multiple case study strategy. The case studies (research sites) are located at Bulwer, Ixopo, Madadeni, and New Hanover. The multiple cases allowed for comparison of the experiences and perceptions of CBPs and service recipients associated with each CAO. Sampling strategies were discussed. Data analysis techniques were highlighted for the social science and legal research. The manner of achieving reliability and validity in mixed methods research was presented and the use of triangulation explained. Ethical considerations and limitations of the study were also delineated in this chapter.
The following four chapters explore the context of the four case studies along with the findings from the quantitative and qualitative data for each CAO.
6-158
Chapter 6: The Case of Bulwer Community Advice Office
6.1 Introduction
The previous chapter outlined the research design and methods and highlighted the various strategies, sampling techniques, data collection and analysis methods employed for this study. This chapter presents the context of the Bulwer Community Advice Office (CAO) as well as the findings from secondary quantitative and primary qualitative data. The quantitative data entails case intake and the number and types of cases handled by the CBPs between 2009 and 2011. The qualitative data are divided into two sections. The first section covers the qualitative data derived from interviews with paralegals and focus group discussions with service recipients. These data relate to the formal justice system (Domestic Violence Act) and the informal system of community restorative justice (CRJ). The second section covers the qualitative data on interaction between CBPs and the traditional justice system. The data are discussed with reference to the literature.
6.2 Context of the Bulwer Community Advice Office 6.2.1 Location
The office is situated in the small rural town of Bulwer, 70 kilometres west of Pietermaritzburg. It is situated in the police station precinct in the Sisonke Municipal District. The municipality covers a geographic area of 1 970 sq. km, and has a population of 107 558. Bulwer has limited infrastructure but is gradually developing.
Areas around the small town have access to electricity, although there is still a lack of sanitation and the nearest hospital is in Pietermaritzburg.
6-159
Figure 6-1 Location of the Bulwer community advice office (Source: UKZN Dept. Geography) 6.2.2 Socio-economic conditions of service beneficiaries
The office predominantly serves rural and farming areas, which combine traditional areas under Amakhosi and Izinduna. People find it easy to access the Bulwer office because it is situated in the shopping district in the area. Throughout the study paralegals from the Bulwer advice office are referred to as BWP1 and BWP2.
The Bulwer CAO collects data on the socio-economic circumstances of their clients; the chart below shows the socio-economic status of clients from 2009 to 2011. The study could have included case data from 2011 to 2013; however the database was being upgraded at the time of the review, and there was a backlog of two years. The survey of cases recorded during 2009 to 2011 shows that 38% of the clients who approached the office were unemployed, 16% were housewives and only 13% were employed; the remainder were pensioners (17%), and students (14%).
Poverty is a problem in the area, with the majority of people relying on government welfare grants. In addition to providing basic legal services, the CBPs engage in community projects to help community members generate income to feed their families. According to BWP1 and BWP2, most unemployed people in Bulwer seek assistance with obtaining social grants; while others request help with social problems relating to poverty (CBP interview, 11 July 2012).