The methodological approach to the study is mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative; as a result, research tools associated with qualitative and quantitative were combined to collect data. Thus the research tool used for the quantitative was self- administered questionnaire whiles the qualitative study employed a semi-structured interview guide. On the other hand, secondary data was also relied on for the study; thus, a range of published works, such as books, articles, internet, newspaper articles and many other publications useful to the study was included. The use of secondary data in the form of documentary sources in social science research is supported by Miller and Brewer (2003). They believe that documentary sources in social science research include reports, periodicals, newspapers, articles, photographs, letters, diaries and many more. Hence as part of gathering information for the study, these sources were employed to draw data relevant to the study.
The tools for the data collection translated the research objectives into specific items in which the responses provided the data required to achieve the research objectives. Most importantly, in order to achieve this purpose, each question conveyed to the respondent the ideas required by the research objectives, and each item obtained a response which was analysed for fulfilling the research objectives. Further, the choice of data collection methods was informed by a number of reasons. Firstly, self-administered questions are widely used primary data collection tool for quantitative study and it helped to gather standardised data for the study. Again, it is valid and reliable as a result of the pilot test which helped to clean all errors before conducting the main research. Supporting the issues of reliability, Radhakrishna, Francisco, & Baggett (2003) stated
124
that achieving reliability will be established using a pilot test by collecting data from at least 20- 30 subjects not included in the sample.
More so, the design of the instruments matched carefully the research objectives of the study and also the questions went through various stages of validation ranging from student, colleagues to expert validation in the persons of supervisors. This validation process, in essence, made the questionnaire very reliable. Thus, validity is established using a panel of experts and a field test as confirmed by Norland (1990). In addition, the questionnaire measured what it intended to measure; it represented the content of the study; it was appropriate for the population; and it was comprehensive enough to collect all the information needed to address the issues of the study. Questionnaires used in the study made data collection faster and relatively cheap to administer and this can be supported by Bryman’s (2004) assertion that the appeal of the questionnaire stems from it cheapness and quickness in terms of administration.
Qualitative methods such as interviews were used to obtain in depth information necessary for the study. An Interview guide was developed with it two sections. The first part is made up of demographic information and the second part is made up of guiding questions for the interview for the various respondents. In-depth interview helped and allowed respondents to respond from their own perspectives without any influences from me. This proved effective since it allowed the participants to describe their own experiences with inclusive education. The interviews complemented each other in that the interview which was open ended questions allowed the respondents to express themselves freely and to give detailed information about the situation studied. Moreover, the interview conducted helped to use less structured approach; that is, the interview was conducted in a more conversational style, and probed more easily for understanding and further conversation (interview). Again, in the interview, the respondents talked more
125
compared with restriction placed on them in choosing from a range of answers to fill out a questionnaire. This confirms, Robson’s (1993) claim that most respondents are more willing to talk in an interview than the case would have been if they were asked to write or fill out a questionnaire. Also, it was realized that respondents felt secured since the information collected was done face to face. It was also noted that the advantages of interview over only questionnaire is enormous in that the interviewee is able to ask for clarification if a question is not well understood. There is high response rate regarding questions attempted by the interviewees. Thus there is a guarantee that all the questions will be answered if the interviewee allowed time for the interview. In achieving the validity of the interview, transcriptions were taken to some of the respondents to verify before analyzing it to prevent any errors. However, the comments or changes they made and suggested were corrected before the data was analysed. The act of validation is very important here because information can be distorted in the course of transcribing; however, it is important to cross check from the interviewee to make the data authentic to the study.
In all the methods used, there were high rate responses from the respondents in the data collection process.In spite of it being time consuming, the data collection process and exercise went generally well and provided a relevant data needed for the study.
Briefly, the issues raised above made the questionnaire and interview relevant, reliable, and valid and adequately addressed the concerns of the study.