Resultados de la caracterización de los episodios

3.5.1 Introduction

Trustworthiness traditionally is expressed through the concepts of reliability and validity, with reliability referring to the ability of a research instrument to produce consistent results,

and validity referring to the ability of a research instrument to measure what it is supposed to measure (Golafshani, 2003:598-600; Le Grange, 2009:7). Depending on which research paradigm a researcher ascribes to, reliability and validity will be constructed differently however (Creswell & Miller, 2000:125; Le Grange, 2009:7).

The traditional understanding of reliability and validity based on the ideal of objectivity and the notions of prediction and control which ties in with Positivism, is challenged in the interpretivist paradigm (Le Grange & Beets, 2005:116; Le Grange, 2009:8). The interpretivist researcher sees reality as subjective: multiple realities exist as seen through the eyes of different individuals (Connole, 1993:22). This requires active involvement from the

researcher in the process of negotiated meaning, not detachment, and inevitably raises the question of ambiguity (Connole, 1993:20). No wonder then that there are diverse

perspectives on validity in qualitative research, with reliability often not even discussed. For clarification, Golafshani (2003:600) notes that one should not look at reliability and validity separately in qualitative studies; terminology that encompasses both, such as credibility, transferability and trustworthiness should be used instead. The need for qualitative research to be trustworthy remains valid (Creswell & Miller, 2000:124; Golafshani, 2003:600).

Content analysis as framed within the interpretivist paradigm has consequently also found critics in the positivist paradigm who consider it to be a simplistic technique that does not lend itself to detailed statistical analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008:108). As Elo and Kyngäs explain, though, “it is possible to attain simplistic results by using any method whatsoever if skills of analysis are lacking. The truth is that this method is as easy or as difficult as the researcher determines it to be.”

Trustworthiness therefore depends on the ability and effort of the researcher (Golafshani, 2003:600). Since the researcher’s main aim is to generate understanding as opposed to explaining, predicting and controlling (Connole, 1993:19; Le Grange, 2009:3), the

trustworthiness of the research is, as Connole (1993:23) puts it, “dependent on the quality of the social, linguistic and cognitive skills of the researcher in the production of data analysis and conclusions”.

3.5.2 Application of trustworthiness to this study

How, then, have researchers within the interpretivist paradigm maximised the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative studies? Le Grange (2009:9-10) identifies four types of validity that are typical for the interpretivist paradigm: inter-subjective objectivity, face validity (member checking), thick description and triangulation. As inter-subjective

objectivity and face validity are mostly related to interviewing and observing as methods of gathering data, this study made use of thick description and triangulation as validity types. It is important to note, however, that the boundaries between different paradigms and the types of validity framed within them are often blurred (Le Grange & Beets, 2005:116; Le Grange, 2009:9). The study consequently also made use of content and construct validity framed within the positivist paradigm as categorised by Le Grange (2009:10) and researcher reflexivity and peer debriefing framed within the critical paradigm as categorised by

Creswell and Miller (2000:126). Where needed, terms could be redefined to fit the interpretivist paradigm (Le Grange & Beets, 2005:116).

3.5.2.1 Content and construct validity

As mentioned in section 3.4, the success of qualitative content analysis is greatly dependent on the coding process (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005:1285). In this context content and construct validity were redefined to function within the interpretivist paradigm for the purposes of the current study: content validity refers to the extent to which the researcher was able to cover all of the data without omitting any key categories; and construct validity refers to the extent to which the identified categories reflect the subject of study in a reliable manner (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008:112; Le Grange & Beets, 2005:115).

Content and construct validity as defined here are listed as a challenge for conventional content analysis. As Hsieh and Shannon (2005:1280) explain, there may be evidence of researchers “failing to develop a complete understanding of the context, thus failing to identify key categories”. One of the activities employed by this study to enhance content validity was immersion in the data and repeated engagement with the data as suggested by

Elo and Kyngäs (2008:113). Hsieh and Shannon (2005:1280) refer to this as prolonged engagement. In order to strengthen construct validity, the central research questions were kept in mind throughout the process of data analysis and comparison.

In a sense one can see these two as strengthened by all the other types of validity which are discussed here. The use of triangulation by employing not only the conventional but also the directed content analysis method, for instance, also increases the credibility as categories are identified from the literature as well as the curriculum documents.

3.5.2.2 Triangulation

According to Creswell and Miller (2000:126), “[t]riangulation is a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study”. The term originated from military navigation where sea vessels would find their bearing by triangulating among different distant points. With triangulation being a type of validity framed within both the positivist and interpretivist paradigms, Golafshani (2003:603) motivates its contribution to the latter as strengthening a study’s ability to portray the complexity of social reality.

In this study, triangulation was used in two ways to enhance the credibility of the study: different data sources and different methods of data analysis were used. Firstly, the

conceptualisation of Mandarin Chinese teaching in South Africa was explored by comparing the South African curriculum with another data source, namely the Australian curriculum. By looking at how another, comparable country went about conceptualising their Chinese teaching, a more comprehensive understanding of South Africa’s approach is reached. Secondly, two methods of data analysis were used, both the conventional and the directed content analysis methods, as discussed in section 3.3.3. The weakness of the one approach is the strength of the other and so the use of both strengthened the trustworthiness of the conclusions.

The use of different data sources and different methods of data analysis could also identify negative evidence or evidence to the contrary, a validity procedure described as

establishing themes or categories and then searching through the data for evidence that is consistent with or disconfirms these themes” (Creswell & Miller, 2000:127), was interpreted as not only looking at what is present in the curricula, but also identifying that which is absent.

3.5.2.3 Thick, rich description

According to Denzin (1989:83), “[t]hick descriptions are deep, dense, detailed accounts… [t]hin descriptions, by contrast, lack detail and simply report facts”. Although this type of validity is traditionally used when people are interviewed or observed in order to transport the reader into a setting or situation, it can also be applied to the study of documents. In this study of curricula, credibility was established by using the literature review to comprehensively describe the context for the study, namely the South African educational landscape (section 2.1) as well as the uniqueness of the Mandarin Chinese language and its history in South African schools (section 2.2.3 and 2.3). A clear open motivation has also been given for data selection strengthening the credibility of the data sources as it motivated the compatibility of the two countries’ curricula (section 4.2). The research proceeded to apply thick interpretation of data by describing the analysis process and the results in as much detail as possible in Chapter 4. This has increased the reliability of the study as it demonstrates a link between the results and the data. Supporting excerpts as well as tables and appendices were used in this context, as suggested by Elo and Kyngäs (2008:112,114). As Elo and Kyngäs (2008:112) put it “demonstration is needed of the reliability of the findings and interpretations to enable someone else to follow the process and procedures of the inquiry”.

Another aspect of thick, rich description is its ability to contribute to transparency when strengths and limitations are openly discussed (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008:112). In this context, the strengths and limitations of the research method is discussed in section 3 of this chapter, that of the analysis in Chapter 4, and of the researcher in Chapter 5.

3.5.2.4 Peer debriefing

Peer debriefing involves having someone external to but familiar with the study and having expertise regarding the subject under investigation, to review the study or aspects of it (Creswell & Miller, 2000:129).

In the initial phase of constructing the research proposal, repeated skype chats with Andrea Klopper, a Chinese English friend involved in facilitating Chinese language study for

foreigners in China, helped me with clarifying the study focus. Right in the midst of the analysis and comparison process, fellow postgraduate students gave their input at a writing seminar held on 17 May 2016. I was also very fortunate to be invited to attend a training session for South African Chinese teachers in the June/July 2016 holiday at the East China Normal University in Shanghai, where I could talk to one of the CAPS Mandarin SAL writers, Professor Ding. The discussion centred mainly on their experience as curriculum writers in writing the CAPS Mandarin SAL, but I could also discuss some of my ideas with her (Ding, 2016). During the final phase of reviewing the first draft, I identified Professor Renate du Toit from the Stellenbosch Department of Modern Foreign Languages, a key expert on CAPS second additional language curricula in general and specific experience with German. At this stage, Andrea Klopper once again contributed by reading through the Introduction. In general, I found it very helpful to discuss my research with interested parties who had varying degrees of expertise, as the process of verbally explaining myself helped me to identify salient features and the other party often posed questions which forced me to think of aspects I had overlooked.

3.5.2.5 Researcher reflexivity

According to Creswell and Miller (2000:127), “[r]esearcher reflexivity is for researchers to self-disclose their assumptions, beliefs and biases that may shape their inquiry”. As such it is a type of validity positioned within the critical paradigm by means of which individuals reflect on their own backgrounds as a force that shapes their interpretation. This may be one of the most challenging phases of any study (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008:113). For this study, the aim was to describe the researcher’s own actions and insights by using interpretive commentary throughout the discussion of the findings presented in Chapter 4. In the first

chapter, a description of my personal background and interest in the topic of Mandarin Chinese study is included and Chapter 5 contains a separate section dealing with the limitations of the study which include my reflections on my own limitations as researcher.

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter presents Interpretivism as methodology underpinning the study; content analysis, both conventional and directed, as research methods for analysis and comparison and five types of validity used to establish the trustworthiness of the study.

The discussion not only describes but also provides justification for these choices. The work done in this chapter therefore serves as preparation and planning for the actual process of investigation presented in the next chapter.