existing body of knowledge,” Silverman (2001) observes, “is a key criterion for evaluating works of qualitative inquiry” (as cited in Shenton, 2004, p. 69).
Second, the researcher collected the data using two methods—document review and face-to-face semi-structured interviews—which enabled him to unearth various dimensions about the research phenomenon (Gibbs, 2007); to corroborate interview evidence with documentary data and vice versa; and ultimately to minimise the potential limitations of either method. “No single item of information (unless coming from an elite and unimpeachable source),” Lincoln and Guba (1985) observe, “should ever be given serious consideration unless it can be triangulated” (p. 283). However, the idea was to generate as much and as diverse evidence as possible to facilitate the drawing of meaningful conclusions, not that the accumulation of data from the two methods would produce a more complete picture (Silverman & Marvasti, 2008). After all, “threats are ruled out by evidence, not methods” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 158).
Third, the researcher utilised a descriptive writing style—the issues that were investigated, the contexts that surrounded the issues, the collection and analysis of data and the research findings are presented in a detailed way—to enable the potential readers to understand the process through which the study was carried out (Shenton, 2004).
In addition, by corroborating the interpretation of the data with quotations from the interview transcripts and the reviewed documents, the dissertation (a) shows that the study and its findings are grounded in fact and (b) gives readers an idea about the milieu of the study—the people, the organisation and the documents that were studied. In short, it brings the reader “closer to the data and enables … [the researcher] to show exactly how the ideas … [he discusses] are expressed by those … [he] studied” (Gibbs, 2007, p. 97). Last, the researcher had debriefing sessions with his supervisor and colleagues, which enabled him to test his ideas and interpretations, minimise biases and preferences, refine the methods and develop a greater explanation of the research design and strengthen arguments in light of the comments made (Shenton, 2004). It is worth noting that the above-mentioned strategies were utilised as ways to “eliminate obvious mistakes and to generate a richer set of explanations of … data” (Gibbs, 2007, p. 94), not just to guarantee that the study would be a true picture of reality.
3.5.2 Transferability
Transferability is a qualitative researcher’s equivalent of the concept ‘external validity,’
which addresses the issue of whether or not the results of a study hold “true for a wide range of (specified) circumstances beyond those studied in the research” (Gibbs, 2002, p. 13) or can be generalised to other situations or a wider population (Merriam, 1997; Shenton, 2004). However, since qualitative research findings are often specific to individuals and small numbers of particular environments, it is impossible to generalise such findings and
conclusions to other situations and populations. In such studies, the concern, then, is the transferability, which is,
The extent to which the case study facilitates the drawing of inferences by the reader that may have applicability in his or her own context or situation (inference, however, not to be confused with generalizations, which are context-free and time- free laws regarding human behavior). (Lincoln & Guba, 1988, p. 18).
Thus, although scholars, such as Bassey (1981), propose that if readers believe that their situations are similar to that described in a study, they may relate the findings to their own positions, it is the researcher’s responsibility to provide ample contextual information about his or her study so that readers can compare the fit with their own situations (Merriam 1998; Shenton, 2004). Accordingly, this dissertation offers detailed information about the research milieu (e.g., the case institution) and the research process (e.g., the selection of the interviewees and the analysis of data (Shenton, 2004) to enable readers to find out whether the described research situation matches their situation and whether the research findings can be transferred to their situations (Merriam, 1998). In short, it is, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) observe, “not the naturalist’s task to provide an index of transferability;
it is his or her responsibility to provide the [credible] database that makes transferability judgements possible on the part of potential appliers” (p. 316). In essence, research findings must be credible first before they can be transferable; otherwise, it would be pointless to ask whether meaningless information has any general applicability (Merriam, 1998).
3.5.3 Dependability
Dependability is the qualitative researchers’ equivalent of the term ‘reliability,’—that is, whether the results of a study are “consistent across repeated investigations in different circumstances with different investigators” (Gibbs, 2002, p. 13). To address reliability issues, positivists employ techniques to show that if the work were repeated in the same context, with the same methods and with the same participants, similar results would be obtained (Shenton, 2004). However, since what is researched in qualitative studies is flux, multifaceted and contextual—that is, information gathering is a function of who gives it and the skills of the one collecting it and the fact that qualitative case study design is highly emergent—achieving reliability using the traditional provisions is not only fanciful but also impossible (Merriam, 1998, p. 206). However, this should not be construed as an attempt to denigrate the importance of dependability in research or as an excuse for sloppiness.
Thus, in this dissertation, the researcher presents the research process (e.g., the generation, coding and analysis of data) in a detailed and descriptive way (Merriam, 1998) so that the potential readers and future researchers can assess whether or not the researcher followed proper research practices (Shenton, 2004). Besides the detailed description of the research process, the researcher recorded and transcribed verbatim all the interviews and checked
all the interview transcripts to capture all the contexts and responses of the interviewees.
However, the aim of these strategies was, for the most part, to maximise the credibility of the research findings and to provide information about how the study was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.
3.5.4 Comfirmability
Confirmability in qualitative research is comparable to the term ‘objectivity’ in positivist research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton 2004). Accordingly, ensuring confirmability requires taking measures to guarantee that the findings of one’s study result from the experiences and ideas of one’s informants rather than one’s own characteristics and preferences. However, as Gibbs (2007) observes, qualitative researchers, like all other researchers, “cannot claim to be objective, authoritative, politically neutral observers standing outside and above the text of their research reports” (Gibbs, 2007, p. 91). Accordingly, the key test of the confirmability of a study is the extent to which an investigator admits his or her inclinations, reflexivity—that is, recognising that
“the product of research inevitably reflects some of the background, the milieu and the predilections of the researcher [although] the scientific model claims that good research is objective, accurate, and unbiased” (Gibbs, 2007, p. 91). To this end, this dissertation contains detailed information about vital issues and processes, such as the grounds on which knowledge claims were justified (number and characteristics of the interviewees, length of the interviews and ethical issues); the coding of data; the analysis of data, including the framework used; and the strengths and limitations of the research design. In addition, the dissertation contains sufficient data extracts from documents and interview transcripts to enable its potential readers to confirm or to corroborate the issues raised therein. The researcher also acknowledges the beliefs that informed his choice of the research methods, the case institution and the interviewees (Gibbs, 2007; Shenton, 2004). Reflexivity, then, is an acknowledgement that since we cannot eliminate the effect that a researcher has on the research process, we should understand these effects and monitor and report them (Gibbs, 2007) so that readers of our reports can understand how our research findings were derived. In short, it demands of researchers more accountability and thoroughness.
4 Higher Education in Uganda
To understand fully the organisational practices and characteristics of any HEI, it is necessary to first understand the national system within which that institution operates.
Accordingly, this chapter describes and discusses key features of HE in Uganda—
specifically its history, size, composition, aims and goals, governance and financing.