Anexo I: Identificación del servicio.

As expected of all research, there was a need to ensure that findings of this study were trustworthy. This is important in evaluating the worth of the study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This was particularly crucial in this study considering that I was researching an issue I have experiences with, and interest in, that could be influenced by my own experiences and prejudices. Because of this, several strategies to assure trustworthiness of the findings were employed.

To begin with, I demonstrated trustworthiness through prolonged engagement. This means staying in the field to establish and sustain relationships with participants and the settings in order to understand and discuss teachers’ experiences accurately (Hays and Singh 2012; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Arguably, the more time a researcher spends in a study setting engaging with participants, the more trust is established between the researcher and the participants (Morse, 2015). The attendant impact is that the researcher will get rich and better data as more information will be revealed and data will be more credible. As indicated in previous sections, I spent a week with each focus teacher interacting and observing their daily routines. I also showed interest in their activities through participation in some school activities. Interviews were also conducted in two different stages. This meant I had a prolonged engagement with participants which made me feel confident that the data was credible.

Furthermore, the use of purposive sampling to select focus teachers across all the three levels of basic education with different qualifications and experiences supports trustworthiness of the data. By taking into consideration teachers of varying experiences who were exposed to the same context, in this case deprived rural areas, the findings reflect the essential characteristics of teachers in these districts (Hays and Singh, 2012). I also employed member checking by seeking clarification of participants’ responses and expressions through probing questions during my data collection (Baxter and Jack 2008; Cohen, Manion and Morrisson, 2010). This was important in ensuring ‘goodness of fit’ of findings as it avoided any misunderstanding and misinterpretation of participants’ opinions (Hays and Singh, 2012, p.206).

Page 108

It is argued that because in qualitative research, ‘the researcher is the instrument’, there are bound to be discrepancies in interpretation of issues observed and interviewed by different researchers (Ball, 1990, p.167). While this may be the case, I tried to provide enough details about myself and the research process to enable readers make decisions about the extent to which findings relate to research involving participants in similar settings or participants, what Sandelowski (1986) terms as leaving a decision trail. Throughout this study, every process and procedure have been explained in detail and clearly. For example, although the study was not autobiographical, it was essential to acknowledge the influence of my own experiences and position as a former basic school teacher on the study design and the fieldwork. My position as an insider and outsider demanded an awareness of the two ‘hats’ I was wearing and how this would influence my views on the issues I was exploring (Miller, 2012, p.129). This open acknowledgement helped as much as possible to manage potential biases as I reminded myself of this throughout the study through constant reflexivity. Moreover, because of my privileged dual position, I could identify easily with these teachers which enriched my understanding of their experiences and access to rich and sensitive information. Arguably, other researchers in a different position might not have been privy to such data or understood well the complexities of these teachers’ situations. I have also explained in detail the research strategy and justified why case study was deemed most appropriate for the study. As the main strength of a case study strategy lies on its detailed contextual information (Baxter, and Jack, 2008; Yin, 2009), I have explained in detail the background of the focus districts, teachers’ schools and profiles (see Chapter Five). It is, therefore, possible for readers ‘to recognise and connect with the events and experiences shared by teachers in this study (Simons, 2015, p. 178). Other researchers exploring similar settings can also relate to the findings.

The use of triangulation in my data collection also helped to minimise the possibility of bias so as to obtain trustworthy data. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue, when data is gathered from different sources and yields similar findings, then the credibility and dependability are assured in the findings. As discussed, data was gathered through both interviews and participant observations. These methods were complemented with the writing of field notes. This approach ensured that I gained as full a perspective as possible

Page 109

of the experiences and perceptions of participants. The use of both interviews and participant observations also ensured that I could identity whether participants did what they claimed they were doing in my interviews with them and to identify any contradictions or distortions among the data source. The findings from the different sources in this study yielded similar findings indicating that the findings are credible.

Researchers are also entreated to ensure findings of a study are genuine reflections of participants’ experiences (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This is achieved by minimising interference with the data and listening to the data as much as possible (Hays and Singh, 2012). To fulfil this requirement, during the data collection, leading questions which had the likelihood of influencing participants’ responses were avoided as much as possible. As I was also aware that my professional background, experiences and preconceptions could affect the study, I tried as much as possible to be reflexive in every step and decisions made. My reflexivity as the researcher added to the rigour of the research, by checking any subjective biases and prejudices, thereby creating transparency. Finally, I employed peer review in this study by discussing the data collection methods, interview guide, transcripts and initial analysis with colleagues as well as presenting work in progress at conferences at the university and outside it. All these added different perspectives to some of the issues that were likely to be taken for granted. Therefore, one can have confidence in the findings.