La perspectiva de este trabajo sobre la conversación

Trustworthiness in a qualitative research is important in enhancing confidence in the researcher’s findings. (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It describes how believable the findings of a study are (Elo, Kääriäinen, Kanste, Pölkki, Utriainen, & Kyngäs, 2014, p. 2). In this study, trustworthiness/credibility were ensured from the beginning through to the end of the study by

ensuring that critical peer reviews accompanied every step and stage of the research in other to check for “bias, neglect or lack of precision” as recommended in Henning et al. (2004, p. 148). Data was collected through open-ended questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (for triangulation); member checking was ensured by asking the participants to validate their contributions, by constantly checking with them if the data they provided had been captured and interpreted accurately; and finally, providing a ‘thick description’ of the “research methodology and context” in the research report as proposed by Li (2004, p. 305). In a QCA specifically, trustworthiness is important in enhancing confidence in the researcher’s findings. (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, Frankael et al., 2015). There are specific steps divided into three phases which must be followed from the start of the data collection period until the reporting phase of a QCA, in order to ensure trustworthiness (Elo et al., 2014). The flow chart in

Figure 3.3 shows the steps among all the prior mentioned generic qualitative research steps followed in this study by the researcher to ensure trustworthiness.

Figure 3.3: Steps followed to ensure trustworthiness in content analysis

3.9.2 Credibility

Credibility considers the quality of findings for any qualitative study and constitutes a major indication of the trustworthiness of the study (Creswell, 2014). It also describes how believable the findings of a study are, just like trustworthiness. It depends more on the richness of the information gathered, rather than the amount of data gathered (Elo et al., 2014, p. 2).

In the case of this study, the researcher examined five of six steps proposed by Guba and Lincoln, (1994), to ensure credibility, namely “prolonged engagement, peer debriefing, persistent observation, progressive subjectivity and member checks”. Negative case or deviant case analysis which is typically used as a strategy to monitor cases which deviate significantly from the normal was not applicable to the study as the data and results obtained through the different phases did not show deviation from the normal. Hence, for ensuring the credibility of this study, five steps outlined in Figure 3.4 were followed.

Figure 3.4: Steps for ensuring credibility

As seen in Figure 3.4, the researcher ensured member checks from the start to the end of the research project by asking the participants to validate their contributions to the study outcomes, by constantly checking with them if the data they provided was captured and interpreted accurately (Merriam, 1998).

There was prolonged engagement over a period of four months between phase 1 and 2 of data collection. This engagement was relevant for the researcher to interact with the learners and teachers at the participant schools throughout the duration of the study. Apart from the steps listed in Figure 3.4 the researcher also ensured triangulation by collecting data through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 1998). The researcher also provided a ‘thick description’ of the “research methodology and context” in the research report (progressive subjectivity) as proposed by Li (2004, p. 305). An audit trail of all the raw questionnaire and interview data were kept, in order to be able to validate the decisions made during collection, recording and analysis of the data, if the need arose (Merriam, 1998).

3.9.3 Transferability

Transferability refers to the extent to which the findings of a qualitative study can be transferred to a different context with different participants (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). According to Bitsch (2005), the “researcher facilitates the transferability judgment by a potential user through ‘thick description’ and purposeful sampling” (Bitsch, 2005, p. 85). In this study, transferability was ensured through purposive sampling of participants who could provide the best possible insights for the inquiry. The researcher provided a rich and thick description of the all the findings from analysis of data of the two phases of the study.

3.9.4 Dependability

Bitsch (2005), defined dependability as “the stability of findings over time” (p. 86). Dependability involves participants’ evaluations of the findings, interpretation and recommendations of the study to ensure they informed by the data collected by the researcher (Cohen et al., 2011; Tobin & Begley, 2004). Audit trails, coding and recoding through the entire data as well as replicability are some of the strategies used in qualitative research to ensure dependability.

Two of aforementioned aspects for ensuring dependability were followed. The researcher went back and forth with the participants three time to ensure that their input was understood during

the coding process. This was done after the first cycle of coding was completed, by returning to the school with learners’ responses and probing for further elaborations and change of views, if any. An audit trail was kept for all data from both phases of the inquiry. These measures were taken to ensure that the study was reproducible in different contexts (De Vaus, 2001; Miles & Huberman, 1994), and to provide clarity to the consumers of the research findings (Frankael et al., 2015) on how the study was evaluated.

3.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethics and ethical principles define a measuring lens for human behaviour, and provide the line between wrong and right. Ethical considerations, therefore, become an important aspect of research as they provide guidelines for respecting the participants in a study, maintaining confidentiality, ensuring participants volunteer to participate and ensuring that a researcher’s behaviour is acceptable and no harm is done to human or animal life (Creswell, 2009; Frankael et al., 2015) in the course of carrying out research. Ethical standards are also important in preventing fabrication in research data and evidence, and hence are relevant in ensuring that research pursues the truth in every inquiry as one of its fundamental goals. According to Mouton (2001), ethical standards should be four-fold, in relation to the practice of science, the society, subjects of science and the environment as indicated in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Ethics in Research

Source: Adapted from Mouton (2001).

Extracting from Mouton’s four strands as seen in Figure 3.5 the researcher ensured that the practice of science was upheld, by collecting data herself, checked with participants, to validate their contributions to the study and ensured that all external contributions were duly cited.

In relation to the society, all the steps in obtaining the relevant permissions were followed prior to the fieldwork. Permission to adopt and use the VASI questionnaire was also obtained from the questionnaire authors (See Appendix J). Initial ethics clearance was obtained from the University of Johannesburg (Appendix A) at the proposal phase, as the university’s standard procedure for all research activity. After the institutional ethics clearance was obtained, the next level of clearance was obtained from the Department of Basic Education (Appendix B), to facilitate access to the selected high schools and ensure that the Gauteng Department of Education is aware of and accountable for all research activities within its schools.

In relation to the subjects of science, who constitute the participants in the study, the researcher ensured that all the relevant consents from school principals (Appendix C), class teachers (Appendix D), parents and participating learners (Appendix E) were obtained. Confidentiality and anonymity (Pseudonyms used for descriptions) were maintained at all levels of data

collection and the write-up. Participation of all learners and schools were strictly voluntary and participants reserved the right to withdraw their consent at any time. Finally, no financial or other benefits were promised to the schools or learners who participated in the study.

Lastly, in relation to the environment, no aspect of the study constituted any possible hazard to the environment and therefore the researcher was cleared of this strand of ethics.

3.11 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter, the description of the research methodology, design, sampling techniques, data collection procedures, data analysis and the evaluation of the study are presented. Also included in the chapter are a description of the main research instrument, the VASI questionnaire, the context of the different schools selected for the study and the rationale for selecting all the methods employed for the study. The chapter concludes with a description of the research evaluation processes of credibility, trustworthiness, dependability, transferability, ethical considerations and a chapter summary.

CHAPTER 4 - ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE LEARNERS’