Adherencia

There are a number of approaches used by different researchers to realise their study goals, e.g. qualitative, quantitative and mixed method. As explained by Creswell (2019:32), these approaches are not as isolated as it may sound. Qualitative and quantitative approaches should not be regarded as firm, diverse and contrasts. Instead, they characterise different ends of the same scale. More often the difference is brought by the use of words, i.e. qualitative research is associated with words and quantitative research is more related to numbers. Mixed method researches are a combination of the elements of both the qualitative and quantitative approaches.

4.2.1 Quantitative approach

Creswell (2014:32), states that in this method, data collecting instrument is basically a questionnaire, with closed-ended questions. Quantitative research assists researchers to test objective theories by examining the relationship among variables and measures, in order for numbered data to be analysed through statistical procedures. The final written report has a set structure consisting of introduction, literature and theory, methods, results, and discussion. Those researchers who engage in this form of inquiry have assumptions about testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling for alternative explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate the findings. Creswell (2014: 32) also highlights an important aspect that another difference is brought about through basic philosophical norms brought by researchers into their studies, i.e. research strategies (e.g. experiments).

4.2.2 Qualitative approach

Qualitative researchers explore and try to understand the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social problem. Instead of experiments, they use case studies as one of their research strategies. In this approach, data collecting instrument is open- ended questions, in the form of interviews. The research process also includes questions and procedures that may emerge during the course of interviews. These interviews take place in the participants’ choice of settings. Beyond the collection of data, analysis of such is done inductively, focusing on individual meaning, whereby themes get built from particular to the general state. Subsequently, the researcher makes interpretations of the meaning of the analysed data and finally writes a report that may take any structure, since flexibility is allowed (Creswell, 2014:32).

4.2.3 Mixed method approach

Creswell and Clark (2007:5) define the mixed method as an enquiry that guides the direction of the collection and analysis of data as well as a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or series of studies. In addition, Creswell (2014: 32) highlights that in mixed method research, data is collected in both quantitative and qualitative forms. In that manner, the qualitative and quantitative approaches complement each other and bring about a more complete understanding of a research problem than if an enquiry was done through either one of them (Creswell, 2014: 32).

The mixed method approach was selected for this study. This implies that, this study benefitted from both quantitative and qualitative methods by using questionnaires as well as semi-structured interviews to collect data. Questionnaires helped me to gather data from a large number of participants (refer to Table 1) in a short space of time and that made this a low-cost technique, as explained by Botha et al. (2013:264). These authors (2013:265) also outline the advantages of questionnaires, stating that respondents get the opportunity to give their opinions without fear of recrimination or embarrassment and that data collected this way can be easily summarised and reported on. They, however, warn that questions should not be ambiguous or embedded where more questions are asked in one statement. It is also stated that questionnaires do not allow free expression of other optional answers besides the ones provided and they cannot always identify causes of problems. That assisted the study to acquire relevant and useful answers from the respondents. Towards the end of questionnaires, I had provided spaces in the last section, to allow respondents to elaborate under a specific theme and also to mention any other matter in addition to their responses. This allowed them to dispatch other related information which was not necessarily requested in any question.

Interviews are said to be a valid method of gathering data because the participants can provide their own views in the manner they prefer and are comfortable with. They can also gain insight into their own situation, which they might not have been aware of before. Interviews also gave me the opportunity to pick up emotions when respondents were answering certain questions (Botha et al., 2013). A student interviewee explained how she had wanted to become a medical doctor but because of lack of funding, she finally chose to be a STEM teacher. She showed emotion and related what had led to her financial unpreparedness to study medicine. During the interview, when I asked more questions for clarity, she discovered something about herself which she claimed she had not been aware of before then, that being the STEM teacher is

... more spiritual than anything to me. A lot of learners find it difficult to relate with people at higher levels… (She smiled as she continued.) I love the whole idea, putting myself to the learners in order to help them to take the sciences.

For in-depth questions, some participants asked for clarity and I also managed to probe questions that were not properly or fully answered. Although all questions were answered, for some respondents interviews can be stressful, even though they are a technique with a higher response rate (Botha et al., 2013:265). They are also perceived as time-intensive, expensive to undertake and the results may be more difficult to analyse and quantify than results from questionnaires.

Taylor (2005:250) states that quantitative research emphasizes the use of ‘numerical data’, hence quantitative designs focus on numbers. This author further explains that qualitative research emphasises the analysis of complex data in terms of content. In this study, the number of participants was large in all (see Table 1) and served as a good representation of the subject investigated. The roles they played and their occupations were completely different, i.e. university students, administrators and lecturers, as well as government officials. That contributed positively towards the validity and reliability of this research. The fact that participating universities are in two different provinces (refer to Map 1) and that their historical backgrounds are completely diverse, also justified the generalisation of this study’s findings.

What I’d also noticed, was the same trends and opinions from participants, even though they were not from the same university and/or same nationality. The question on whether there is a difference in the performance of young women and young men in the STEM fields was responded to by two lecturers (male and female) from two participating universities, who provided me with answers that complemented each other and added value to this research. A female lecturer’s response was that the performance is exactly the same. The male lecturer from the second university stated: ‘Having worked in four universities so far, (I can safely say) women do better…’. The above information presents some of the main reasons and necessity for choosing a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods, i.e. the mixed method approach, for this study.