Fortalecimiento de la institucionalidad ambiental

5.11.1.1 Access Phase 1

Access to the schools was not as difficult as I initially thought it might be, as I had met the principals of the schools before this study began. They knew who I was and where I worked. Initially, I wrote letters to the schools but before I could send the letters I decided to make a telephonic contact with them. During the conversations, all the schools said that they were willing to be included in the study, so the letters were then unnecessary.

151

implementation of the SSP. Preliminary visits to schools were done between August 2008 and February 2009. Visits for observations and interviews for the SSP were done between 26 May 2010 and 16 September 2010.

Phase 2

After preliminary findings indicated there had in fact been no implementation of the SSP, I decided look at the intervention that was being implemented - CFS. That led to the phase 2 of the study, as already indicated. Access to the three schools in phase 2 was also not difficult. This was made easier by getting help from the office of an NGO that was responsible for the implementation of the CFS programme. Visits for observations and interviews for the CFS Programme were done between 7 August 2011 and 05 October 2011.

5.11.1.2 Challenges Phase 1

Quite a few challenges were encountered and these varied from one school to another. In school A, the first date set for the visit was 21 July 2010. This was postponed to the 27 July 2010, as the school had another engagement (going to the memorial service of one of the teachers who died in that area). The same kind of challenge happened in school G. I was supposed to have first visited the school on the 26 May 2010. Instead the visits only started on the 1 June 2010. The reason given there was that there was an invitation to the schools from the MEC for education to meet the schools to discuss strategies that would help them to improve their grade 12 results.

In schools B, D, E and F the challenges were related to getting the members of the School Governing Bodies (SGBs) to the schools. Members of the SGBs were reluctant to go to the schools because they were not that committed to their work and hardly visit the schools. In school C, there were no challenges.

Phase 2

In schools I and J the challenges related to getting members of the SGB to schools. This was, as already indicated, because members of the SGB were not willing to come to the schools. Another challenge, especially in school J, was communication. The telephone line was

152

was different. Members of the SGB came and were willing to talk during interviews.

5.11.1.3 The role

There are different observer roles that a researcher can adopt during field work. Dane, (1990:158-160), Le Compte, Preissle and Tesch, (1993:93), Hammersley and Atkinson, (1995:99-109) and Clarke and Dawson (1999:79) outline them as complete participant, participant-as-observer, observer-as-participant and complete observer. In this study, the researcher adopted participant-as-observer role. The purpose of my visit to schools was explained to the participants in advance so that as I interacted with them they were aware of my intentions. This was done in line with Stake’s advice in Denzin and Lincoln (2000a:447) when he says that “[i]ssues of observation and reportage should be discussed in advance”.

I entered the sites openly with the purpose clearly explained to the participants in both phases of the study. This helped me, as Clarke and Dawson (1999:79) indicate, to enter “the social

world of those engaged in programme activities in order to provide a full and detailed account of the programme”. I was able to capture the concerns, issues, emotional reaction of

the participants in the study.

Observation was used but with an awareness of its disadvantages. Clarke and Dawson (1999:81) outline these as being costly, both in terms of time and money, concern about the reliability and validity of observational data, and that it can be a potential source of bias. Stake (2004a:59) comments on the issue of bias by saying: “Becoming a professional

evaluator, or a professional of any kind with expertise in evaluation, is partly a matter of learning how to deal with bias.” Bias was one of the threats during observation.

I was also aware of the experiences of Posavic and Carey (1997:219) during observation. This helped me to be cautious when observing – to not make the participants nervous about my presence. This was done to avoid provoking the participants in the study. Posavic and Carey summarised their experiences of this in this way:

The presence of observers can lead the program staff to act in guarded ways in an effort to control the impressions of the evaluator. Observers can also make staff members nervous and lower their effectiveness, as we have done when staff members had not been informed that their presentations were going to be observed.

153

participants, during both phase 1 and phase 2, by visiting the sites before the research started. What also helped was that some of the participants, especially the principals and teachers, already knew me well. This helped me to mix freely with the participants where they raised issues during informal discussions. In school C I was even given a bag of oranges! The rapport established helped me to describe the schools in detail, as outlined in their profiles in Chapter 6, and to really see what was going on in terms of the implementation of these programmes.

Furthermore, care was taken to deal with factors which could undermine the validity and reliability of the study during observation. These, according to Guba and Lincoln (1981:147),

“include filters and selective perceptions that cause human beings to ‘hear’ certain things and not to hear others, to see or read into a person’s actions something that is not there, or to fail to note what is clearly there”. There was therefore a need to deal with biases and other

threats to the validity and reliability of the study.

5.11.1.4 Efforts made to deal with errors and biases

In order to deal with potential sources of biases and disruptions during observation during phase 1 and phase 2 of the study, I had to adopt strategies for countering that. This was done by being as unobtrusive as possible during school activities. Even in situations where they wanted my opinion, especially on some of the issues that they felt strongly about with the Department of Education, I remained neutral, though at times the temptation was there to comment.

Furthermore, I followed Stake (2004a:60)’s advice when he writes that:

One initial strategy for dealing with bias is explication-that is, making everything as explicit as possible. That means getting it down on paper or up on the screen so it can be circulated, scrutinized, and wrung out. It means taking great care to define terms and operations. It means to try out data gathering in advance and to open the use of instruments and protocols to critical review. It means to be objective, allowing the least influence of personal preference.

As indicated, my presence in the setting was made explicit to the participants. This was done in order to make it clear to the participants that I was there as a researcher. The other strategy was to present myself to them as a colleague and not an expert who knew everything. This

154

could not express themselves in English, they were free to express themselves in their mother tongue which is Northern Sotho. In some cases they used a mixture of English and their mother tongue to express themselves in both phases of the study.

I also tried to avoid actions that were likely to be disruptive, like answering a cellphone during conversation. I also had to be presentable and use a language that they were comfortable with. The experiences differed from one stakeholder grouping to the other since teachers and principals were comfortable with English, whereas others, especially the learners and the SGB members, were more comfortable with their mother tongue which is Northern Sotho.

Despite all these efforts, I cannot tell with certainty that my being present in the setting did not affect the data. It is possible that there might have been certain reactions that I did not notice during observation.

5.11.2 Interviewing Phase 1

The use of observation as a method of data collection did not answer all the questions about the implementation of the SSP. During observation, I noticed that all schools had been fenced, as reflected in their profiles, and had gates that restricted access. Some schools, like school A, C, F, also had signs indicating items that are not allowed in the school yard, whereas schools B, E, D and G did not have signs. That raised questions that remained unanswered, even during informal conversations that I had with the participants in the study. As a way of getting answers to the unanswered questions, a semi-structured interview technique was adopted.

Phase 2

All the schools (Schools H, I and J) in the CFS programme had signs up showing items that were forbidden on school property. That raised questions that remained unanswered. In trying to get answers to the unanswered questions, a semi-structured interview was adopted.

155

Lack of answers from direct observation and informal conversation with the participants on some of the issues in both phase 1 and phase 2 of the study, led me to look for a technique that would be flexible but also focused on the questions that should be answered. That led to the use of the semi-structured interviews. Such interviews allowed me to introduce the topic and ask probing questions, as Rubin and Rubin (1995:5), Kvale (1996:124), Clarke and Dawson (1999:72), Arksey and Knight (1999:97) note. It was possible to pose follow-up questions where the responses needed more explanation. It also helped in terms of flexibility in the sense that the researcher did not stick to the sequence of questions as outlined in the interview guide.

Care was taken to deal with weaknesses inherent in using this method. Among other weaknesses which the researcher had to deal with are those outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1981:187-188) when they write:

Weaknesses in interviewing include its inefficiency and cost, although it does provide the richest information per unit of time invested. The materials are difficult or impossible to pretest (unless one is using a highly structured interview with pre- developed protocols). The results are unpredictable and may be non-aggregatable or nonequivalent over several interviews.... Nevertheless, interviews are difficult to replicate, since the data collection device is a human being, and the technique is also highly vulnerable to interview bias. The interviewer can influence the outcome of the interview enormously through the subtle cues he transmits. While the possibility exists that the interviewer can “train” the interviewee to be a good respondent by giving him cues, it is also possible to alienate the respondent by giving him the wrong kinds of cues, sometimes unconsciously. As a result, the maintenance of interviewer-respondent rapport is problematic....

The weaknesses were dealt with by not trying to influence the respondents in their responses to questions. This was done by only nodding as they replied, without interjecting or disturbing them. Some orientation questions were used at the beginning of the interview to allow the respondents to relax and at the same time establish a cordial relationship. Furthermore, I also used words that the participants could easily understand to maintain rapport, and avoid situations where they responded to something that they did not understand.

5.11.2.2 Selection of Interviewees Phase 1

Initially before going into the field the intention was to interview as many of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of the SSP as possible. This was meant to provide all the

156

the SSP. After talking to some of the stakeholders, especially government officials, who raised their concerns about its implementation at the school level, I decided to select stakeholders who were based in the schools, as they are regarded as the recipients of the programme. That included the principals, school governing bodies (SGBs), teachers responsible for safety in schools and Representatives of Learner Councils (RCLs). These stakeholders were selected because it was thought that they would shed more light on the implementation of the Safe School Programme at the school level. Other stakeholders initially included were the manager responsible for the Safe School Programme in the Department of Education and the deputy, as well as policy makers.

After informal conversation with the DOE manager, it emerged that there was no deputy. He coordinates the whole programme and is also involved in developing policies about the Safe School Programme provincially and nationally. Consequently, those interviewed for the study were SGBs, principals, teachers responsible for issues concerning safety in schools, RCLs and the manager responsible for the implementation of the SSP in the Department of Education. Due to time constraints, a focus group interview strategy was used when interviewing the SGBs, teachers and learners.

The selection criteria can be summarised as follows:

(i) Stakeholders who would shed more light on the implementation of the Safe School Programme

(ii) Stakeholders who held a position that had something to do with the implementation of the Safe School Programme

(iii) The managers and policy makers in the Department of Education responsible for the implementation of the Safe School Programme

(iv) Stakeholders who were willing to be interviewed.

Phase 2

Those interviewed during phase 2 of the study were the principals, school governing bodies (SGBs), school management teams (SMTs), teachers responsible for safety in schools, Representatives of Learner Councils (RCLs) and the director of an NGO called LINK that was responsible for the implementation of the CFS programme. These were all stakeholders who were recipients of the programme. Furthermore, the inclusion of SMTs in phase 2 of the

157

trained to implement the CFS programme. The director of LINK was also included because I hoped that as he was the person who coordinated the implementation process, he could shed more light on the implementation of the CFS. During phase 2 of the study, a focus group interview strategy was used to interview the SGBs, teachers and learners.

The selection criteria for phase 2 can be summarised as follows:

(i) Stakeholders who would shed more light on the implementation of the CFS programme

(ii) Stakeholders who held a position that had something to do with the implementation of the CFS programme

(iii) The director of LINK, the organisation responsible for the implementation of the CFS programme

(iv) Stakeholders who were willing to be interviewed.

5.11.2.3 The rationale for interviewing the manager and policy makers in the department and the director of LINK

Phase 1

Interviewing school-based stakeholders was the main focus in the study. But this was not sufficient because I needed to get some understanding of its coordination at government level, as well as the policy directives. I then decided to interview the managers and policy makers at the government level, which did help to get a picture of what was happening in terms of the implementation of the programme at the level of those who formulate policies.

Phase 2

During phase 2, the director of LINK was interviewed. As already indicated, this was done in order to get a broader picture about the implementation of the CFS programme in schools from someone who was not school-based.

5.11.2.4 The setting where interviews were held Phase 1

Most of the interviews were held in the offices of the principals, except in school A where interviews were held in the store room.

158

Interviews in school H were held in a room that is used for hospitality studies. In school I some of the interviews were held in classrooms that were not being used at the time. In school J interviews were held in different places. Some were held in the principals’ offices, others in a staff member’s office or in the staffroom. The manager in the Department of Education and the director of LINK were both interviewed in their own offices.

5.11.2.5 The interviews (a) The interview schedule

Phase 1

Interview schedules helped to focus the interview sessions. They were composed of questions that were meant to get data on the implementation of the SSP. The questions were the same for all the stakeholders except that there were some variations in the interview schedule for the manager in the Department of Education. That was done so as to allow the manager to tell more about his role in the implementation of the SSP. For example, the manager had to also indicate whether the implementation was across all the schools or not. (For details of the interview schedules, see Appendices R-V.)

Phase 2

The interview questions in phase 2 of the study were slightly different from those in phase 1 of the study. The differences are due to the fact that phase 2 focused on the implementation evaluation of the CFS programme. The questions were more or less the same for the other stakeholders, except for the director of LINK. The director of LINK, like the DOE manager in the case of SSP, had to also indicate whether the implementation of the CFS programme was the same in all the schools or not. (For details of these interview schedules, see Appendices W-B2.)

Since the interview questions served only as a guide, there was a lot of flexibility during the interview sessions. As indicated, questions were not followed in the order they appeared in the schedule to allow the participants to express themselves without being channelled in any way. Follow-up questions were posed, especially on issues that were not clear and issues that were deemed relevant and important in answering the research question.

159

The process of interviewing resulted in many different experiences. The interaction with the participants helped to ease the tension that usually happens during interviews. The period of observation had been useful in familiarising participants with the researcher. Some of the participants started informal conversations with the researcher before starting with the formal interviews. This helped participants to relax.

Something to note, though, is that even the RCLs were more willing to talk during the interviews. They were keen to demonstrate how knowledgeable they were in terms of safety issues in their schools. Even though the participants showed interest in being interviewed, some challenges were encountered during the interviewing sessions.

(i) Challenges encountered during interviews Phase 1

One of the challenges in school D was that during interviews, teachers and learners would come into the office of the principal for various reasons that ranged from looking for the principal to making photocopies on the copier in the principal’s office. Another challenge in school E was when my tape recorder stopped functioning. I had to write down what the respondents were saying while listening to them.

Communication was also a challenge in most of the schools. In schools A, C D, E, F and G learners were not entirely comfortable using English but preferred their home language. In such cases I had to code switch between Northern Sotho and English. That was the same with the SGBs. In school A, the parent component in the SGB could not understand anything