Presentación de Órdenes de Compra

As previously mentioned, multi-strategy approach (Bryman, 2004:454), which is also referred to as mixed methods research (Creswell & Plano Clark 2007:23) was adapted for this study. A mixed method allowed for greater prominence of the strengths of the data collection and data analysis techniques (Bryman, 2004:454). According to Bryman (2004:454), the technical version, unlike the epistemological approach, sees multi-method research as being able to enhance reliability and validity of data in a complimentary and supportive manner rather than being seen as incompatible, as believed by proponents of purist paradigms.

Data was therefore collected for analysis both during and after participants had attended the learnership programme.

4.6.1 Research paradigm

Mixed methods research is immersed in differing paradigms and positions itself in a world view, which is regarded as pragmatism (Creswell et al., 2007:23), which argues from an ontological perspective, maintaining that multiple realities exist and that multiple ideas, which include using what works, will evidently offer multiple perspectives of reality. According to Creswell et al. (2007:27), mixed methods research values both objective and subjective knowledge, therefore embracing deductive and inductive processes (Cherryholmes, 1992;

Murphy, 1990; and Rory, 1990, in Creswell et al., 2007:27). Toshakorri and Teddlie (2003a) in Creswell et al., (2007:26) argue for a mixed methods approach, labelling pragmatism as a practical and applied research philosophy, [which] should guide methodological choices.

4.6.2 Mixed methods approach

Mixed methods research uses both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis procedures, taking its perspective from different world-views or paradigms in positivism, as well as constructivism (Lincoln & Guba, 2000;

Creswell 2003 in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007:23). Creswell et al., (2007:5) and Terre Blanche and Durrheim (2002:431) maintains that mixing quantitative and qualitative data in a single study, also often referred to as methodological triangulation, will offer a far better understanding; present convergent evidence when applying different methods of data collection; and lend credibility to the construct validity of the research problem, rather than when using either one approach on its own. According to Welman, Kruger and Mitchell (2005:143),

„measurement reactivity‟, in cases where subjective constructs such as attitudes and perceptions are variables that are measured, could be subject to

„faking‟ or „acquiescence‟ on the part of participants. This then further argues for the value of using triangulation methodology in order to strengthen the outcomes of the study. For this study the mixed methods approach that was applied and assumed the format as illustrated in Figure 4.2 below.

Figure: 4.2 Triangulation Design

Source: Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007:63

4.6.3 Quantitative methodology

The initial method of data collection utilized a quantitative method by way of a survey questionnaire. Using descriptive methods of presentation, results of the data are portrayed in tabular and graphic format.

QUAN Quantitative Data Collection

Interpretation based on QUAN + QUAL

results

QUAL Qualitative Data Collection

4.6.3.1 Survey questionnaire

Questionnaires are well suited to gathering reliable subjective measures such as stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations of a learning encounter in question (McNamara, 1999:1). Questionnaires are also found to be “an efficient data collection mechanism when the researcher knows exactly what is required and how to measure the variable of interest” (Sekaran, 2000:233). Further reasons for using questionnaires are that they are considered to be easy to administer and allows one to maintain anonymity and confidentially. McNamara (1999:1) stresses the importance of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity, as participants were encouraged to give their honest opinions regarding their personal feelings and experiences, which could cause learners to encounter feelings of intimidation. In this instance, therefore, confidentiality was necessary to ensure that participants respond honestly.

For this study, questionnaires were administered to 124 participants.

Participants were addressed during classroom time. The purpose of the study and the procedure were explained to participants who were then requested to complete the questionnaire.

The sample that was used to administer the questionnaire was based on learners who were accessible and available (Mantzopoulos, 1995:169) during the period of study and, consequently, included learners who enrolled in various learnership programmes, registered at the time with various SETAs throughout the area. While it was not possible to obtain a broader distribution of learners across a wider spectrum of the 23 registered SETAs, nine different learnership programme coordinators conceded to participate in the study, which represented a spread over seven different SETAs. A total of one hundred and twenty-three (n = 123) learners completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was handed to learners during a contact session with a training provider. The purpose of the study, as well as the questionnaire, was explained to learners, while they were encouraged to ask questions where needed. Learners were thereafter afforded sufficient time to complete the questionnaires, which allowed for a 100% response rate (Sarantakos, 2000:223-243). As a result, all

questionnaires, with the exception of one questionnaire which was incomplete, were usable for this study.

4.6.4 Qualitative methodology

In order to gain more in-depth knowledge about learner perceptions, expectations and experiences, the study was further complimented with qualitative data collection by way of focus group interviews (Terre Blanche &

Durrheim, 2002:399; Welman, Kruger & Mitchell, 2005:188).

4.6.4.1 Focus Group Interviews

To facilitate a greater degree of reliability for data collection and in line with triangulation methodology (as demonstrated in Figure 4.2 on page 76), the latter part of the data collection was conducted by using focus group interviews.

Focus group interviews are considered an efficient means to obtain a range and depth of information in a relatively short time (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas &

Robson, 2002:11; Mc Namarra, 1999:1).

Focus groups consist of a group of individuals who have experienced commonality through a specific encounter (Powell & Single, 1996:499; Terre Blanche, 2002: 388), and in this case the group members attended a learnership programme together. Focus group interviews allowed an in-depth exploration through group interaction and discussion, which permitted participants an opportunity to express their feelings and experiences in an open, honest, candid and secure environment (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 2002:388; Mc Namarra, 1999:1).

Kitzinger (1995:1) maintains that focus groups enable group dynamics, which can facilitate a non-threatening environment where people in groups are allowed to “explore and clarify their views” in a discussion by using their own language and, consequently, generating their own questions, which often leads the research to enter into new unpredicted trends and themes.

Focus group interviews explore a specific set of issues that exploits the interaction within the group discussion to elicit information, which can be applied as research data (Kitzinger, 1994:103-104) and “… capitalises on communication between research participants in order to generate data”

(Kitzinger, 1995:299). Focus group methodology, as a qualitative method was, therefore, found to be the best strategy to obtain in-depth information and encourage dynamic discussion between participants who had participated in the initial survey questionnaire and had, subsequently, completed the learnership programme.

The interviews were conducted between three and six months after the learners had completed the learnership programme. Only learners who had completed the programme were considered for the focus group interviews. This was necessary in order to establish factors that are associated with learners‟

perceptions and to seek information on their actual status with regard to employability and living standards once they successfully completed the programme and acquire the necessary certification.

After a period of a few months, and once learners had completed the learnership programmes, convenience sampling was applied resulting in 39 learners being invited to attend a focus group interview and 19 learners attending the interviews. The sample of learners who attended the interview was drawn from the original list of participants who completed the questionnaire. This was necessary to ensure authenticity of participants who originally engaged in the study.

Three groups consisting of between five and seven participants attended the interview sessions. Refer to Table 4.3 on page 84 for a breakdown of attendees of the focus group interviews.