Inreflecting on the strengths and limitations of this study, an attempt will be made to include some reflections on the personal process of undertaking this research as well as reflections on this particular method of enquiry.
7.1 Strengths of this study
Research investigating child abuse and decision-making, particularly in South Africa, has been scarce. Although the statistics indicate that child sexual abuse is a
phenomenon of increasing occurrence and media reports indicate it to be a matter of national and political concern, research in this domain also appears to be limited.
Therefore, perhaps one of the immediate strengths ofthis study lies in the topic matter. Secondly, while statistical analyses and empirical data are important for describing the extent of the problem, an understanding of why certain decisions are made may be of more value ifexisting policies are to be addressed. Inthis light the use of Grounded Theory seems to have been particularly helpful since this method of enquiry is well suited to investigating processes and motivations. A valuable aspect ofthe study is that it allowed the participants to engage in finding solutions and offering recommendations to areas they perceive as creating conflict. All participants were aware that their recommendations would be presented as part of the results and approached the task with thoughtfulness. The study has presented results that have implications for continued child protection and multidisciplinary co-operation. If these results do nothing more than open up a debate and bring certain issues to the discussion table, then it will have been well worth it.
For the researcher whose intention it is to examine the underlying processes behind certain actions, Grounded Theory provides an interactive and structured
methodology. If the method according to Strauss and Corbin (1990, see page 89 ) is followed then system checks and balances attempt to ensure that the data is valid and reliable. Since this method focuses on the theory that emerges directly from the data, it seems promising. Although qualitative methods are known for their lengthy and detailed analysis and Grounded Theory in this study was no different, the process was invigorating and worth the time and effort since the researcher interacts directly with the data at all times. In addition, the way in which the theories took form more than compensated for the sometimes extreme demands on time and effort.
7.2 Weaknesses of this study
One ofthe major differences between quantitative inquiry and qualitative, is the issue of representativeness. Since Grounded Theory does not have any claims to being representative of a certain population, the results cannot be generalised. The tendency to want to generalise the results needed to be regularly addressed by this researcher. For example, because some social workers made decisions in certain ways it did not mean that all social workers had the same inclinations. This was an important issue. If generalising the results is important to the researcher then Grounded Theory is not the process to be used. However, since the focus in this study was on self-reported theories of decision-making and the motivation behind these theories, Grounded Theory was a valuable method to use.
This issue is worth expanding on. While this study is a first step in investigating decision-making, the theory behind a Grounded Theory Analysis is that the results are never completed. This could be seen as a weakness as the results become fluid in
nature. On the other hand it could be a strength. Either way the results lend
themselves to further analysis and in this case perhaps an empirical study testing the theories and fine tuning them.
One ofthe issues that I struggled with is that of confidentiality. All participants were concerned about their identities being kept confidential. Although in theory this appears a simple matter of not recording names, in practice the issue becomes more complicated. Since a few experts in the field were interviewed, just reading the interview transcripts would make it possible for some ofthem to be identified. For this reason the decision was made to keep the transcripts private. This may impact on the validity of this study since the information cannot be verified by an outsider.
However, it is hoped that the information given in the coding process and supporting quotations will suffice. A further reason for keeping the transcripts private is the information regarding individuals and organisations referred to therein.Itseems ethically appropriate that the integrity of such individuals and organisations not be compromised by making the transcripts available. Any inconvenience this may cause is regretted.
Another area ofconcern is the assumption in this research that words match actions.
As such, the decision-making processes were centred on vignettes and not a study of reality. There is no assurance that what these key role players say they would do, is an accurate reflection of their behaviour in day-to-day practice.
Although previous researchers have cautioned against the inexperienced researcher attempting Grounded Theory, there seems to be no easy way of gaining experience.
This study then becomes an area of personal growth and development.Inheeding the
cautions regarding experience, every effort was made to collect more data than necessary and to engage in each step of the process whole-heartedly. This was also the reasoning behind doing the analysis by hand when it could have been undertaken with the aid of a computer program.Itwas important to me for each step to make sense.