The collection of data did not begin until ethics approval was obtained for the study (Annexure A). In Phase 2 all the ten participants were contacted, both telephonically and via email, to set up the meeting at a location of their choice. Participants had the right to refuse to participate finally there six educators and four field instruction supervisors who were part of the study. At the beginning of each interview the interviewee was provided with a Participant Information Sheet (Annexure C) and was requested to sign two informed consent forms for the interview and to audiotape the session (Annexure E & F). Some of the interviews were conducted in a coffee shop and in offices of the interviewer and interviewee. A last request to each interviewee was addressed as follows: “I will be careful to write up this interview in a manner that does not identify you. However, is there anything you have just told me which I should be particularly careful about? Is there anything I should check with you before I use it?” These questions provided a further opportunity for the participant to assess what had transpired in the interview and suggest any changes. On most occasions there were no amendments suggested by the participant. Once the data was collected the information was kept in a password-protected file and hard copies were kept in a locked cupboard and archived, so that subsequent research articles might emanate from the study. However, all future reports will respect the nature of the original participants’ consent.
100 4.11 Procedural Ethics
There are procedural and practice ethics that were followed to guide interaction with human participants. Procedural ethics included permission to conduct the study from the Head of Department in Social Work at Wits (Annexure B) and ethical clearance was obtained from the University of the Western Cape (UWC) Research Ethics committee (Annexure A). The study was therefore conducted according to ethical practices pertaining to the study of human subjects, as specified by the Faculty of Community and Health Sciences at UWC and the SACSSP Code of Ethics. Practice ethics that were complied with are: respect for autonomy, confidentiality, privacy and dignity, and upholding the principle of beneficence, which means that no harm was done to participants (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004).
4.11.1 Informed consent
Written consent was obtained from all participants, confirming that they were informed about the aim of the study and their rights, including for audio recordings. (Annexure E & F). Students provided written consent for electronic and written data to be used for the purpose of this study
4.11.2 Right to withdraw for study and autonomy
Participation in the study was voluntary and participants had the right to withdraw at any stage, with no consequence. A participant information sheet (Annexure C & D) outlining the key aspects of the study and the rights of participants in easily understood language was provided before data collection.
4.11.3 Confidentiality
Confidentiality was built into the study by ensuring that participants’ identities were protected. Thus, pseudonyms were used in the external reports emanating from the study. A focus group binding-form was signed. Information such as notes, transcripts, digital recordings, journals, discussion posts, video recordings and images were kept in a locked cupboard or in password-protected computer files.
101 4.11.4 Anonymity
Anonymity was provided in the online survey, unlike the focus groups and the individual interviews, as the identity of the participants was known to the interviewer. If participants experienced any psychological distress during the study, counselling would have been provided by a professional from the Emthonjeni Centre at the University of the Witwatersrand.
4.11.5 Researcher bias
Researcher bias was mitigated by the use of open and honest narrative. Credibility or truth- value is improved when both positive and negative or discrepant information is presented in the report in the findings section. For example, both positive and negative comments made about the course and the methods used were noted in the report.
4.12 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness in qualitative studies ensures rigour similar to how reliability and validity is sought in quantitative research studies (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). Qualitative research, cannot obtain reliability and validity in the same way in “naturalistic “settings such as the classroom (Shenton, 2004, p. 63). Thus qualitative studies seek to achieve trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is enhanced when the following aspects are considered: representativeness, consistency, confirmability, credibility, transferability and dependability, as developed from the 1985 model by Lincoln and Guba (Babbie & Mouton, 2011).
Representativeness refers to how the data actually represents the problem, the context and / or the participant’s views. All the data was transcribed verbatim and the supervisors of the project has access to the raw data. The supervisors of this study had access to the learning management system as well as the assignments and artefacts produced by the students. Another criterion of trustworthiness is transferability and this relates to the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations. Here the researcher should strive to provide sufficient detail so that the research conditions are described. This study was produced design-based guidelines that could be considered in other contexts. I used verbatim quotes and gave examples of the artefacts so that readers are provided with tangible examples of the work that was produced in this course (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
102
Consistency refers is how the study can be replicated in a similar context or with similar informants which will produce the same results. The use of dependability can enhance consistency, which was achieved through supervisor-checking, ensuring that the research was conducted in a “logical and well-documented manner” (De Vos et al. 2012, p. 420). Other ways to ensure dependability are the use of triangulation of data sets. There was triangulation of that various interviews and focus group with the students and the field instruction supervisors.
Confirmability refers to neutrality (Krefting, 1991) and is used to determine if the study is free from bias. The researcher was also the educator in this study and therefor there was a need to view the data objectively both reflectively and reflexively so that I am able to bring in factors such as the power dynamics, race and gender when the data was analysed. In appendix 1 I share with the reader my own beliefs and assumptions. Moreover I acknowledge the shortcomings of the study methods Triangulation is another way of reducing researcher bias
Credibility involves two aspects: executing the study to create believability of the findings, and ensuring that steps demonstrate the truthfulness of the research results. Credibility was achieved through extended engagement with study from 2013 to 2016. Multiple methods of data collection were used with participants such as a focus group, survey and during focus group sessions and the individual interviews. Digital recordings of the interviews and focus groups were made, which were transcribed verbatim. All the data were transcribed verbatim and the supervisors of the project has access to the raw data.
In addition, triangulation, which is the use of multiple data sources, was done to enhance the rigour of the study Triangulation is the process which occurs when data collected from one instrument, such as the survey in this study, is cross-checked against the data collected from the focus groups and the individual interviews with the students. The term “triangulation” relates to the strongest geometric shape –the triangle – and is based on the premise that the use of multiple methods “solves the problem of rival causal factors, because each of the methods reveals different aspects of empirical reality, multiple methods of observations must be employed” (Patton, 2002, p. 247). Triangulation was used to integrate the qualitative from the survey and the quantitative data (Collins & O’Cathain, 2009) form the focus groups and interviews.
103
Transferability refers to the “fittingness” (Krefting, 1991, p. 261) with which the findings can be applied to other settings or groups. Description of the participants, the research setting, focus group sessions and individual interviews were provided. Furthermore, descriptions of the research methodology and findings, as well as the bias I bring to the study and my reflections, in particular of “negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes” (Creswell, 2009, p. 192), were reported. The descriptive data may allow for comparison with future studies. The design-principles could be used in other studies and for course development.
Dependability examines the extent to which the study can be replicated in a similar context with similar participants, over repeated administrations over a period of time. To ensure the repeatability of the study I showed the various stages of the research and how the draft design principles evolved in design principles using a modified design-based research method. The two supervisors of the study examined the raw data, findings interpretations and recommendations to attest to the dependability of the study (Babbie & Mouton, 2011).