Before any formal interviews started, I had informal chats with individuals as a way to establish rapport. The basis on which trust is built among individuals depends largely on successful bonding represented in the form of rapport. A failure of the participants and the researcher to build rapport can lead to unsuccessful interactions, which can then hinder the interview process. Opportunities for me to answer questions and clear misconceptions that are possible in research were created by this space.It was important that participants understood my intentions clearly so that they did not participate with hopes for material support that I did not have to give. On the other hand,it was important for me to convince the participants that I did not in any way intend to exploit them (Phoenix,1994 and Maynard,1994).
All the interviews were tape-recorded. For this study I wanted a method that would allow me to interact directly with participants (Devault, 1999). Unlike the traditional and the non-feminist approaches to research; truth and objectivity as observed by traditional methodology is not my concern. My believe lies in the prospect of as much interaction as possible with participants and the data (Neuman,1997).
Flexibility allowed both the researcher and the researched to go beyond the questions as asked. This element also allowed me to take and add on information that I could have missed by neglecting to use a semi-structured interview. The response rate increased as there was no writing involved. In cases where there was writing I kept it to a minimum.
The use of this instrument allowed for the employment of feminist research approaches. I
was able to observe none verbal behaviour that I could have missed by the use of other techniques, such as a survey. The instrument allowed me as the researcher and the researched to be able to control the environmental factors. If anyone of us felt they needed to go to the bathroom they could say so and they could go. In this type of interview the study has benefited. The rich data that participants elicit without consultation with anybody other than themselves is valuable. The consultations that they gave were constructions that they made independently. To give them the space to do so, I watched as they paused and engaged in and with their minds over a point. I gave an opportunity for them to remain silent and respected that silence. I only assured them to indicate to me when they are ready to begin talking.
The use of these instruments allowed me the benefit of reusing the schedule. The value of 'multiple interviews' as being more accurate than single interviews has been observed. It allowed for additional questions to fill the gaps and to clear misconceptions from the former interviews (Reinharz, 1992).
The responses to the schedule did not have to follow any order. The type of questions made me feel I have had data that is rounded and provides a deeper breadth. The semi- structured interviews gave opportunities to collect data that included the opinions of the interviewees. For example, I was able to ask," How do you feel about that? What do you think of this?"
The idea of hierarchy in this research was foremost in my mind. The idea of acknowledgement of hierarchical research has been observed (Hermans, 1992; Mies, 1982; Reinharz, 1992 and Singh, 2000). I tried in the study to give opportunity to the researched and myselfto balance power. We drifted from time to time back to a situation where some participants in this study waited for me to lead the way as a knower. At times, I found myself wondering between probing and information giving which has been so characteristic of mylife. Like Arvay (1998) I was confronted with similar statements, such as "Well, I'm not sure if this is what you want, but .. . " and "Well, I'm not sure where you want me to start . . ." and "I hope this is useful." Some of the participants
Karabo Mokobocho-Mohlakoana Chapter Five: Methodological Considerations
shared that they had been involved in interviews before and their expectation that they derived from their former experiences of being interviewed was different from the way this study unfolded. As we had more encounters in situations where we had repeat interviews the situation improved, but not in similar ways for every situation and participant.
5.10.1 Researcher self-disclosure in the process
Self-disclosure is communication in which a person voluntarily and intentionally tells another person accurate information about himself or herself that the other person is unlikely to know or find out from another source (Pearson,J and Spitzberg: 1990). In this study,the basis for my feminist approach utilized and valued the idea of'researcher self- disclosure'.I declared my relationship to the study and to the participants in it. I see self- disclosure as a way to declare myself as being full of feelings, values and favouritisms that I have constructed for my way of making meaning. Even as I conducted this study I felt an urge to say who I am in this research because it illuminates my ways of doing things. I have been a pregnant young woman, I have been a community member in communities where young women's pregnancy interacts with society and I shared these experiences. As I shared my having been pregnant as a young woman, the participants in the study opened up and told me things they said they would not have been willing to share normally.
5.10.2 Researcher VulnerabilitylReceptivity
In doing the research in the way that I have chosen it left its mark on my way of life. The interactions I have had with the participants and the data has changed the way in which I look at situations. My life has been changed in observable ways in which I ask questions.
I share the new me with my colleagues in their own studies. My colleagues point out the change they observe in my language and my way of interrogating data even from related studies. This interaction with the participants and the stories they told combined with my story to reawaken in me moments where I have been touched and become emotional about some of the experiences that have been told. In my journey in this study I kept notes of these feelings and they appear in different parts of this thesis as part my research
journey. I had read Singh (2000), Arvay (1998) and I thought I would be alert and protect myself from feeling any pain. In their studies they were also touched in similar ways. I have been touched and I have been transformed, as this will be observable in this study.
The way I wrote my proposal has been an indication for me that I have shifted. It was the beginning that I made a mark of unaware. As I read my thesis at its final stages I pick out the new me in it. I do not think that I have a way to stop. This is who I want to be till other calls come and who know I might enjoy that unknown land even more than this.
5.10.3 Self reflexivity
The use of self-reflexivity has been observed as an effort to examine and re-examine the researcher's position in relation to the research and the researched. The ability to reflect on one's own location acknowledges that ways of knowing are not innocent and flawless, these ways of knowing are indeed influenced, directed,and guided at times by the values that are deeply rooted in both the researcher and the researched. Reflexivity has been defined as the ability to "reflect upon, examine critically, and explore analytically the nature of the research process" (Fonow and Cook 1992:2). The idea of reflexivity has been helpful for me in this study. The main participants in the study are women who are either currently pregnant or have been pregnant some time back.
Due to my constant effort to reflect,as I listened to the stories as told and the surrounding ways in which we struggled to tell our different stories it dawned on me over again that the participants also have to reflect to tell their stories. As I listened to the storied lives of others I was reminded of my own telling and became aware that what we say and the ways in which we say it is also socially constructed. As we reflect upon our lives, and open dimensions that we frame ourselves from, the way we do this emanates from 'a cultural context, one that has historically demeaned and controlled activities' (Anderson and Jack, 1991:18). Participants in the study at times asked me what do you think I should tell, what do I tell and what do I exclude? In fact the question articulated more a seeking of permission, it says is it all right if I told you what I want to in the way I want to. Or as usual I have to talk according to what would be socially acceptable.
Karabo Mokobocho-Mohlakoana Chapter Five: Methodological Considerations
5.10.4 The Question of Research rigor
The issue of validity also has to evolve and match the claims of particular frameworks (Vithal,2000). I support democratic participatory validity as it touches at the very core of my feminist approach to the study. The pillar on which the concept lies has a strong attraction for me because of the issues of choice,negotiation and reciprocity.
In this study,participants had the freedom to quit if and when they wanted to and indeed some did leave and chose not to participate. The participants also chose the venues for the interviews and the timing of each was deliberated upon and where some participants felt uncomfortable with the venue it was changed. There were girls who I had met through their parents and some parents were interested in the study hoping their children would want to participate. But after I had met some of the girls,they said they were not willing to participate and nothing forced them to stay. We had to agree on terminating that emerging relationship.
The idea for participants to be able to negotiate many aspects ofthe study was built into the study. For example,there was a case of one girl with whom we had agreed to do the interview at home,little anticipating that her mother would try to hear what we discussed and was passing by where we were seated. This is an example of a situation where the girl felt uncomfortable and she decided to meet me at my workplace the following day and the interview went well. The negotiation has continued in different patterns, with some of the participants, they have already made suggestions of how we can use the material produced in this study for the benefit of a wider community like dramatising some aspects.
The study was ensured reciprocity by mentioning and explaining the study to participants at different forums. The explanation included the benefit of the study to the participants.
This was helpful as some of the decisions to leave and not participate were based on the total exposure of the objectives of the study from my part. Some participants who came to the meetings had information that gave them hope that the project would give money
as support and possibly force schools to take the girls back. But within the confines of this study this was not possible. Maybe after this study is completed, we shall find possible ways in which we can assist each other in ways that will be possible at the time.
5.10.5 Reliability
Reliability refers to the "degree of consistency with which instances are assigned the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different occasions"
(Hammersley, 1992:67 cited in Silverman, 2001:225). However, qualitative researchers are less concerned with reliability and are more interested in exploring the specific problem in detail (Willig,2001). Furthermore, they believe that qualitative methods can generate reliable results if applied appropriately (Silverman, 2001and Willig, 2001).
When reporting on interviews,qualitative researchers address the need for low-inference descriptors by using an audiotape for all face-to-face interviews, take care to transcribe the tapes carefully and present their research report (Silverman,2001).
5.10.6 Validity
Valid research can be identified as research that matches the methodology used to the participants' experiences.Participants make an effort to make meaning out of their lives, they 'understand and transform' discrimination as they have experienced it (Eisenhart and Howe, 1992). Because of this theorising of their situation, participants validate the theoretical input from the researchers' side. As a result they both better their positions in relation to power in the research, though it is evident that it can never completely be overcome. Thus the practical and the theoretical get glued together as relationships are made.
Validity is defined as the extent to which research describes,measures or explains what it was designed to describe and measure (Willig, 2001).Ithas become a common practice for social researchers to use the notion of truth instead of validity and goodness of fit.
According to Mouton, the terms validity and goodness of fit "capture the idea that a
Karabo Mokobocho-Mohlakoana Chapter Five: Methodological Considerations
statement or collection of statements can be more or less truthful" (1996:30). Feminist researchers use terms such as credibility and plausibility instead of terms like validity and goodness of fit. The way in which validity is defined shifts from the traditional way in which the term has always been used. What I see is the conscious inclusion of the participants and the way to know both from and with the participant (Vithal 2000, Eisenhart and Howe, 1992 and Lather,1991).
The question of what is true or valid is one that feminist researchers have in common with all social scientists but there is an obvious difference in how they conceive of this truth. Feminist research is not interested in prediction,but aims to show that the results accurately reflect the aspects of social life that they claim to represent.
Qualitative methods are flexible and open-ended, allowing for the evaluation of what is considered to be valid. Respondents can, for instance, challenge the researcher's assumptions about the meaning and relevance of concepts and categories (Willig, 2001).
Thus the great strength of qualitative research is "the validity of the data obtained:
individuals are interviewed in sufficient detail for the results to be taken as true,correct, complete and believable reports oftheir views and experiences" (Hakim,1987:27).
In addition, a qualitative researcher can get feedback on her findings from the participants. If the study or findings make sense to participants, then it seems to have some validity (Willig, 2001). Lastly, the fact that qualitative researchers are always reviewing their own roles in the research process and do not impose their own views or meanings on participants promotes validity. However,reactivity is the biggest threat to the validity of research findings when human behaviour or characteristics are the sources of information (Mouton,1996).
Some ways of enhancing validity and reliability are triangulation, extensive field notes and member checks.