The document is Karen Deller's doctoral thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Johannesburg. The thesis examines the design and implementation of a Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) programme for the South African insurance sector. It presents the background and context for RPL and the research. The methodology used a qualitative programme evaluation approach involving interviews and case studies to understand participants' experiences of the RPL process. Key findings from the data analysis are also summarized.

1. Towards the design of a workplace RPL implementation model
for the South African insurance sector
by
Karen Deller
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
DOCTOR PHILOSOPHIAE
in the Faculty of Human Resources Management
at the University of Johannesburg
Promoter: Professor WJ Coetsee
Co-promoter: Dr L Beekman
April 2007

2. STATEMENT
I hereby certify that the dissertation submitted by me in partial fulfilment of the degree
Doctorate in Philosophiae at the University of Johannesburg is my independent work and
has not been submitted by me for a degree at another faculty or university.
Name: Karen Deller
Date: 23 March 2007
Page ii

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As is usual with an endeavour such as this, many people have contributed, although the
work presented is all my own. I would like to acknowledge and offer my sincere
appreciation to the following people who have supported and guided me through this
research:
• The large, listed short term insurance company that allowed me access to their staff
and granted permission for me to write up my findings;
• The research participants who were willing to share their thoughts and frustrations
to ensure that RPL in the workplace could be more meaningful in future;
• My supervisor, Professor Johan Coetsee, for helping me to actually get to this point.
Your quiet manner and lack of overt ‘academic-ness’ inspired me to keep going. I
will always value your patience and your helping me to see that research and
practice can merge at some point;
• My beloved son, Jayden, who simply could not understand why I did not have time
to play with him as much as I used to. The work is over - I can play again Jay!☺
• And finally to my soul mate Kevin. Thank you for creating the space to let me
pursue my dream. You made me believe that I could do this. Thank you.
Karen Deller
April 2007
‘Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions.
Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too,
can become great.’
- Mark Twain
Page iii

4. TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT .............................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... x
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. xi
OPSOMMING ............................................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER 1 : CONTEXTUALISING THE STUDY .......................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem statement ................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Background to RPL and this research .................................................................... 2
1.4 Concept clarification ............................................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Recognition of Prior Learning and SAQA ............................................................... 5
1.4.2 Logic models, typologies and theories .................................................................... 6
1.4.3 Financial Services Board (FSB) and Financial Advisory and Intermediary (FAIS)
Act.......................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Personal interest in RPL ......................................................................................... 7
1.6 Motivation for and anticipated contribution of the research ..................................... 8
1.7 Aim, objectives and research questions of the study ............................................ 11
1.8 Design overview ................................................................................................... 15
1.9 Chapter outline and technical presentation of the thesis ....................................... 16
1.10 Chapter summary ................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 2 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 18
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 18
2.2 The research paradigm ........................................................................................ 18
2.3 Qualitative research ............................................................................................. 19
2.4 Research design for this study ............................................................................. 20
2.4.1 Introduction to programme evaluation ................................................................. 21
2.4.2 Secondary data analysis ...................................................................................... 24
2.5 Research methodology ........................................................................................ 25
2.5.1 Sampling .............................................................................................................. 25
2.5.2 Data collection...................................................................................................... 27
2.5.3 Data storage......................................................................................................... 29
2.5.4 Data analysis........................................................................................................ 29
2.5.5 Data displays........................................................................................................ 32
2.5.5.1 Diagrams .............................................................................................................. 32
2.5.5.2 Narratives............................................................................................................. 33
2.6 Strategies to enhance the quality of the study ...................................................... 33
2.6.1 Traditional scientific research criteria ................................................................... 34
2.6.2 Social construction and constructivist criteria ....................................................... 35
Page iv

5. 2.6.3 Artistic and evocative criteria ................................................................................ 38
2.6.4 Critical change criteria .......................................................................................... 38
2.6.5 Evaluation standards and principles ..................................................................... 39
2.7 Chapter summary ................................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 3 : PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION ....................................... 43
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 43
3.2 The implementation of the RPL programme ......................................................... 43
3.2.1 How was the decision to implement RPL made? .................................................. 44
3.2.2 How was the RPL programme rolled out to participants? ..................................... 46
3.3 The implementation of the programme evaluation ................................................ 49
3.3.1 Step 1: Identify the intended users of the evaluation ............................................ 50
3.3.2 Step 2: The evaluator and the intended users focus the evaluation ...................... 52
3.3.3 Step 3: Choosing an appropriate design............................................................... 54
3.3.4 Step 4: Interpreting the findings, making judgements and generating
recommendations ................................................................................................. 56
3.3.5 Step 5: Dissemination of the final programme evaluation report ........................... 56
3.4 Chapter summary ................................................................................................. 57
CHAPTER 4 : DATA PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS .................................................... 58
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 58
4.2 Analytical procedures used by grounded theorists ............................................... 59
4.3 Open coding ......................................................................................................... 61
4.4 Discussion of the categories that emerged from open coding............................... 67
4.4.1 Category 1: Catalyst or reason for doing RPL ...................................................... 68
4.4.2 Category 2: Feelings towards the RPL process and FAIS in general.................... 69
4.4.3 Category 3: Questioning the purpose and validity of the programme.................... 70
4.4.4 Category 4: Preparation for the process ............................................................... 70
4.4.5 Category 5: Self-confidence about their ability to do their job and the RPL ........... 71
4.4.6 Category 6: Personal values ................................................................................ 71
4.4.7 Category 7: Perceived link between qualification and job performance ................ 72
4.4.8 Category 8: Role of support systems in controlling anxiety and stress and getting
through the process.............................................................................................. 73
4.4.9 Category 9: Ability to cope.................................................................................... 74
4.4.10 Category 10: Need for confirmation from others ................................................... 74
4.4.11 Category 11: ‘Me’ and ‘I’ vs ‘We’ and ‘Us’ ............................................................. 75
4.4.12 Category 12: Understanding of academic approach and assessment principles .. 75
4.4.13 Category 13: Stress and time consuming nature of the RPL programme ............. 77
4.4.14 Category 14: Personalisation of the RPL process ................................................ 77
4.4.15 Category 15: ‘The RPL’ as opposed to naming the company involved in the
implementation ..................................................................................................... 78
4.4.16 Category 16: Change in perception towards the project ....................................... 78
4.4.17 Category 17: Perception of feedback ................................................................... 79
4.4.18 Category 18: Results/outcome of the RPL programme......................................... 80
4.5 Axial coding .......................................................................................................... 81
4.5.1 Circumstances leading to the RPL process and initial reactions .......................... 85
4.5.2 Personal mastery – actions and reactions to the circumstance that required the
candidates to do RPL ........................................................................................... 89
4.5.3 Choice of team learning and support, a consequence of personal mastery .......... 92
4.5.4 Change in perception – a consequence of personal mastery and team support ... 94
4.5.5 Outcome of the RPL process – reaction of the candidates ................................... 97
4.6 Selective coding ................................................................................................... 98
4.6.1 Storyline memo .................................................................................................. 100
4.7 Secondary data analysis of RPL workplace case studies ................................... 105
Page v

6. 4.7.1 Barriers to the RPL implementation as described in the case study ................... 107
4.7.2 Assessment methodologies employed ............................................................... 109
4.7.3 The implementation process followed by the implementers ................................ 109
4.8 Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 110
CHAPTER 5 : LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 112
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 112
5.2 Review of the most influential learning theories .................................................. 113
5.2.1 Behavourism ...................................................................................................... 114
5.2.2 Cognitivism ........................................................................................................ 115
5.2.3 Constructivism.................................................................................................... 117
5.2.4 Situated learning ................................................................................................ 119
5.3 Review of the most influential workplace learning theories ................................. 120
5.4 Review of the most influential RPL literature ...................................................... 131
5.4.1 The technical or market framework .................................................................... 131
5.4.2 Liberal humanist framework ............................................................................... 132
5.4.3 Critical or radical framework ............................................................................... 133
5.5 Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 146
CHAPTER 6 : DESIGN OF A LOGIC MODEL FOR WORKPLACE RPL IMPLEMENTATION .... 148
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 148
6.2 Implication of the theories and practice for this research’s emerging logic model of
workplace RPL practice...................................................................................... 149
6.2.1 Circumstances leading to the RPL process and candidates’ initial reactions to it 149
6.2.2 Personal mastery skills displayed by candidates ................................................ 158
6.2.3 Role of team support and/or group processes throughout the RPL .................... 161
6.2.4 Evolving perception of the RPL process ............................................................. 163
6.2.5 Meaning of the outcome of the RPL process upon completion ........................... 166
6.3 Introduction to logic modelling ............................................................................ 167
6.4 Developing a logic model for this research ......................................................... 169
6.4.1 The required results ........................................................................................... 169
6.4.2 The required actions........................................................................................... 173
6.4.3 The theory-of-change logic model ...................................................................... 175
6.5 The activities-approach model ............................................................................ 177
6.6 Advantages and limitations of logic models ........................................................ 180
6.7 Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 182
Page vi

7. CHAPTER 7 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 184
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 184
7.2 Broad summary of the research ......................................................................... 184
7.3 Overall assessment of this research ................................................................... 186
7.4 Contributions of this research ............................................................................. 190
7.4.1 Significance for practice ..................................................................................... 191
7.4.2 Significance for policy......................................................................................... 191
7.4.3 Significance for theory ........................................................................................ 192
7.4.4 Significance for social issues and action ............................................................ 193
7.5 Personal reflections ............................................................................................ 194
7.6 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 195
7.6.1 Recommendations for implementation ............................................................... 195
7.6.2 Recommendations for workplace RPL policy makers ......................................... 196
7.6.3 Future research .................................................................................................. 198
7.7 Conclusions........................................................................................................ 198
7.7.1 Implementation................................................................................................... 198
7.7.2 Policy and theory ................................................................................................ 201
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Example of a diagram created during this research ............................................. 203
Appendix 2: Example of a narrative memo created during this research ................................. 204
Appendix 3: Sample of coded text from the research .............................................................. 207
Appendix 4: Table summarising the outcomes from the open coding analysis ........................ 212
Appendix 5: List of the questions posed to interview candidates during axial coding ............... 222
Appendix 6: Summary of the analysis of the 18 case studies presented by Dyson and Keating
(2005)................................................................................................................. 223
Appendix 7: letter of consent from employer ........................................................................... 232
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 233
Page vii

8. LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 List of stakeholders and the intended uses they may have for the data ........................ 51
Table 4-1 Summary of the categories from the open coding analysis........................................... 64
Table 4-2 Summary of the analysis at axial coding stage ............................................................. 83
Table 5-1 Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001) typology of learning............................................... 123
Table 5-2 Possible ideal-types of formal and informal learning (Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm
(2002) ......................................................................................................................... 125
Table 7-1 Comparing the quality criteria proposed by Kelly (1999b) to this research ................. 188
Page viii

9. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Conceptual framework for this research ....................................................................... 13
Figure 2-1 The grounded theory data analysis process implemented in this research................... 31
Figure 3-1 The RPL process as implemented in the programme – sourced from the Prior Learning
Centre in-house RPL brochure given to the candidates ............................................. 48
Figure 4-1 Copy of the front and back of one of the index cards produced during open coding ..... 63
Figure 4-2 Summary of circumstance – action/reaction – consequence – outcome process flow in
the research data ....................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4-3 Relationship between categories 1, 2, 7 and 13 ........................................................... 87
Figure 4-4 Personal mastery continuums ...................................................................................... 90
Figure 4-5 The link between team support and the categories from the open coding analysis ...... 93
Figure 4-6 Hypothesised link between personal mastery, team support and change in perception .
.............................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 4-7 Grounded theory data analysis model steps linked to the events in this research ...... 101
Figure 4-8 Types of RPL candidates ........................................................................................... 103
Figure 5-1 Conceptual map of Chapter 5 .................................................................................... 113
Figure 6-1 Learning culture continuum presented by Fuller and Unwin (2003; 2004) .................. 157
Figure 6-2 Basic logic model proposed by WK Kellogg Foundation (2004, p. 1) ......................... 168
Figure 6-3 List of results (outputs, outcomes and impact) required from the current research
towards the design of a ............................................................................................ 172
Figure 6-4 List of required actions (inputs and activities) required from the current research towards
the design of a logic model for insurance-sector RPL implementation ..................... 174
Figure 6-5: Theory of change logic model designed from the data collected in this research and
presented towards the design of a logic model for insurance sector RPL
implementation ........................................................................................................ 176
Figure 6-6 Activities-approach logic model designed from the data collected in this research and
presented towards the design of a logic model for insurance-sector RPL
implementation ........................................................................................................ 178
Figure 6-7: High level process flow to guide RPL implementation in the insurance sector........... 183
Page ix

10. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APL Assessment of Prior Learning
APEL Assessment of Prior Experiential Learning
CAEL Council for Adult and Experiential Learning
ETQA Education and Training Quality Assurance body
FAIS Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act
FET Further Education and Training
FSB Financial Services Board
GET General Education and Training
HET Higher Education and Training
ILO International Labour Organisation
NQF National Qualification Framework
RPL Recognition of Prior Learning
SAQA South Africa Qualifications Authority
SETA Sector Education and Training Authority
INSETA Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority
Page x

11. ABSTRACT
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) is an internationally accepted process of assessing
non-formal learning with the intention of matching it to academic credits. This allows the
candidate to earn either a full or partial qualification based on knowledge and/or skills
acquired outside of the formal classroom. The South African insurance sector was faced
with legislation requiring all financial advisers to earn academic credits before they could
continue in the industry. The sector believed that the RPL process would suit their
circumstances because most financial advisers had many years of workplace experience
and had mostly attended many internal, but often unaccredited, product training
programmes. However, there was no RPL implementation model to guide a workplace
implementation of this nature as most RPL models followed the practices set by formal
higher education providers and there was no consideration of the many variables that have
an impact in the workplace.
This research set out to design a logic model to guide the implementation of workplace
RPL in the insurance sector. The data was collected during the evaluation of an RPL
implementation programme that had good results but which used the more
individualistically inspired RPL approach of formal education. The data was analysed
using grounded theory data analysis techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1998 and Glaser &
Strauss, 1967) and the result was the identification of 18 broad categories. Further
analysis reduced these to five categories, i.e. reaction to the circumstances requiring the
RPL, personal mastery, team support, changing perceptions towards the RPL process,
and perceived outcome of the RPL process.
These categories were researched by looking at the most influential traditional and
workplace learning theorists, as well as the most influential RPL theorists. Finally, a
secondary data analysis was conducted on 18 workplace RPL case studies described by
Dyson and Keating (2005). The results of this research were formulated into a logic model
to guide RPL implementation in the insurance sector. Using this logic model as a guide,
further recommendations were made to guide workplace RPL implementation in the future.
Page xi

12. OPSOMMING
Erkenning van Vorige Leer (EVL) is 'n internasionaal aanvaarde proses om nie-formele
leerervarings te assesseer en aan akademiese krediete gelyk te stel. Sodanige erkenning
stel die kandidaat in staat om óf ‘n volle kwalifikasie óf ‘n gedeeltelike kwalifikasie te
verwerf op grond van die kennis en/of vaardighede wat buite ‘n formele klaskamer
opgedoen is. Die Suid-Afrikaanse versekeringsektor het voor wetgewing te staan gekom
wat vereis dat alle finansiële adviseurs akademiese krediete verdien voordat hulle mag
aangaan om in die bedryf te werk. Die sektor was oortuig daarvan dat die EVL-proses
hulle omstandighede die beste sou pas, aangesien die meeste finansiële adviseurs baie
jare se ondervinding in die werkplek het en meestal baie interne, maar ongeakkrediteerde,
opleidingsprogramme oor die verskillende produkte bygewoon het. Daar was egter geen
EVL-model beskikbaar om implementering van so ‘n aard te rig nie, aangesien die meeste
EVL-modelle die praktyke gevolg het wat deur formele hoëronderwys-verskaffers
daargestel is en daar was geen oorweging van die vele veranderlikes wat ‘n impak op die
werkplek het nie.
Hierdie navorsing het dit ten doel gehad om ‘n logika-model te ontwerp om die
implementering van werksplek-EVL in die versekeringsektor te rig. Die data is ingesamel
tydens die evaluering van ‘n EVL-implementeringsprogram, wat goeie resultate getoon het
maar die meer individualisties geïnspireerde EVL-benadering van formele onderwys
gebruik het. Die data is ontleed deur gegrondeteorie-data-analisetegnieke (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998 en Glaser & Strauss, 1967) te gebruik en gevolglik is 18 duidelike kategorieë
geïdentifiseer. Verdere analise het hierdie kategorieë tot vyf verminder; d.i. reaksie op
omstandighede wat EVL vereis; persoonlike beheersing; spanondersteuning; verandering
van persepsies oor die EVL-proses; en die waargenome resultaat van die EVL-proses.
Hierdie kategorieë is nagevors deur die idees van gerekende tradisionele en
werkplekleerteoretici, sowel as van EVL-teoretici te bestudeer. Sekondêre data-analise is
laastens op 18 werkplek-EVL-gevallestudies, wat deur Dyson en Keating (2005) beskryf is,
gedoen. Die resultate van hierdie navorsing is in ‘n logika-model geformuleer om EVL-
implementering in die versekeringsektor te rig. Die gebruik van hierdie logika-model het tot
verdere aanbevelings gelei om die implementering van werkplek-EVL in die toekoms te
rig.
Page xii

13. CHAPTER 1 : CONTEXTUALISING THE STUDY
‘Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.’
- Aristotle
1.1 Introduction
In terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act 37 of 2002, all
financial advisers and intermediaries are required to become licensed with the Financial
Services Board (FSB) if they wish to offer advice and sell financial services. In order to be
awarded the Financial Services Board license to continue advising/selling, the advisers
and intermediaries need to prove that they meet minimum qualification and competency
requirements (Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002). The FAIS
Act was passed to create a new level of professionalism in the South African insurance
industry and to protect the consumer (Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority,
abbreviated as INSETA, 2004a).
The number of affected advisers and intermediaries was estimated to be 75 000 in 2004
(INSETA, 2004a). Those who were unable to prove compliance had two options if they
wanted to continue as a licensed financial service professional: they could either attend a
formal training programme and be formally assessed to acquire the required minimum
qualification or they could apply to have their current insurance competencies assessed for
academic credit without first attending any training programme. This latter process
embodies what is referred to as recognition of prior learning (RPL) by the South African
Qualifications Authority (SAQA)1.
Large employers in the insurance sector expressed the need for an RPL process that
would accommodate the workplace requirements and the staggered FAIS compliance
deadlines (A. Marais, personal communication, 23 May 2004). No such process existed
and this research was conceptualised and implemented with the cooperation of one large
insurance sector employer to address the need for a sector-specific RPL process.
1
The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) is the authority responsible for
maintaining the National Qualification Framework (NQF) in South Africa.
Page 1

14. This introductory chapter introduces and contextualises this research. It provides an
overview of the rationale for the research, defines the research problem and the aims and
objectives, and gives an overview of the research approach to be followed. The chapter
concludes with an overview summary of each of the chapters that follow.
1.2 Problem statement
The primary concern of this thesis is to develop a logic model for the sustainable and
pedagogically sound implementation of workplace RPL in the insurance sector. No
sustainable workplace RPL implementation model exists in South Africa and unless one is
developed for the financial services sector thousands of advisers will have to re-attend
training and write examinations for knowledge they already have simply because they
cannot prove to the FSB that they have the knowledge. This will arguably cost the industry
millions of rands in terms of money and lost production time.
1.3 Background to RPL and this research
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2000) has expressed the view that better
recognition of the skills of individuals would be beneficial for both the employer and the
employee. These benefits include social, economic and political benefits. While
concurring with this view, it can be argued that these benefits will only be realised if
workplace RPL is implemented within the paradigm of workplace pedagogical practice, as
opposed to traditional classroom pedagogical practice. To achieve this, the RPL
implementer must be aware of the paradigm of workplace pedagogy and workplace
restrictions, and understand why RPL has not been widely implemented in the workplace.
Broadly stated, RPL is a practice that gives currency and recognition to a person’s
previous learning, regardless of how and where that learning was acquired. This
recognition can be in the form of academic credits or advanced placement (SAQA, 2001).
However, the way that RPL is defined and implemented is largely determined by the
educational context and policies of the institution implementing the RPL (Harris, 2000).
In South Africa there are many contexts within which RPL can be practiced, including
higher education (HET), further education (FET), general education (GET), Adult Basic
Education and Training (ABET), workplace-based training centres and in the workplace
Page 2

15. itself. Also, each classroom and workplace context will be different and not even two
workplaces within the same industry will be identical.
In addition to the variety of contexts within which RPL may take place, there are different
reasons that may lead a candidate to embark upon RPL. These include (SAQA, 2002;
Harris, 2000):
Access or advanced standing;
Credit for a full qualification;
Credit for a partial qualification;
RPL to prove job competence for promotion;
RPL for job seeking.
Given the number of contexts within which RPL may occur and the many possible reasons
for doing RPL, it is reasonable to deduce that a single model to guide the universal
implementation of RPL is not viable. In addition, Dyson and Keating (2005) state that most
of the RPL literature and research has been compiled in relation to the higher educational
context. Over time, the RPL implementation models that have been proposed by
researchers from the formal academic context have become accepted by practitioners in
other contexts, often without regard to the differences between: the contexts, the RPL
candidates, the reasons for doing RPL, and the methods most suited to RPL within the
context (Dyson & Keating, 2005; Harris, 2000; 2002). This research aims to partially
address this shortcoming in the literature by developing a logic model to guide the
implementation of workplace RPL in the South African insurance sector. This model
will be proposed as a solution to assist those advisers affected by the FAIS legislation.
Despite the South African government’s frequently stated role for RPL as a tool for ‘social
transformation’ (SAQA Act, 1995; SAQA, 2002; Departments of Education and Labour,
2002) the SAQA policies give no national implementation plan to guide RPL
implementation specifically in the workplace. This could be one of the reasons why there
has been little implementation of RPL in South African workplaces (Deller, 2003).
However, even though there is a guiding model and some research on RPL in the higher
educational context, RPL in this context is also not progressing quickly along the path to
wide-scale RPL implementation. Breier and Burness (2003) report only 1200 cases of
RPL in the university and technikon sector in 2003, although they do report ‘wide spread
institutionalisation of RPL policies and practices among the 16 universities and 10
Page 3

16. technikons who responded’ to the survey they conducted. The lack of progress in
implementing RPL was also reported by the combined ministerial study team of the
Departments of Labour and Education (2002, p. 86) when they reviewed SAQA in 2002.
They reported: ‘of all the expectations placed on the NQF, the aspiration for a system of
RPL was perhaps the most significant; hence the failure to provide any large scale
provision of RPL has been one of the greatest causes of current disappointment.’
Some of the reasons for this lack of implementation could include:
The lack of context-specific conceptual frameworks for RPL practitioners in the
different contexts. Practitioners from different frameworks and contexts define RPL
differently and they have different expectations for RPL implementation (Harris,
2002). Without an understanding of the contextual differences in RPL
implementation, the context with the most research will dominate – at present this is
understandably the higher educational context. This research should contribute to
an understanding of RPL in the workplace context.
The lack of widely available information and about RPL. Besides the SAQA RPL
Advocacy Campaign run for three months in 2002, there has been little publicity
around RPL and its benefits. This has resulted in a low level of public awareness
about RPL and its potential.
Uncertainty as to the place of RPL within the full human resources strategy of a
business. Even training specialists and workplace assessors are unsure how to fit
RPL into their human resources strategies (Deller, 2003). This uncertainty will not
result in the ‘sustainable model for RPL’ hoped for by SAQA policy (SAQA, 2002;
2003).
The lack of resources available to business, particularly small business where 57%
of people are employed (Mdladlana, 2002). The logistics and resources involved in
the generic RPL process flow is seen as too complex and too prohibitive for many
businesses to apply (SAQA, 2002).
The complexity of the skills development process and its terminology has made
employers reluctant to engage with the process. The Department of Labour (2005)
stated that there were two reasons commonly given by employers to explain their
non-participation in the skills development and Sector Education and Training
Authority (SETA) processes. These were a lack of information about the SETAs
and documentation and procedures that were too complicated to engage with
(Department of Labour, 2005, p. 39).
Page 4

17. The proliferation of bodies responsible for the generation of standards and
qualifications and quality has led to an absence of strategic leadership and co-
ordination. This is causing confusion within the corporate sector and leading to
delays in implementation. (Departments of Labour and Education, 2002).
The development of unit standards is a labour intensive and voluntary process,
which is taking longer than expected. The lack of unit standards will hinder the
implementation of RPL and the skills strategy (Departments of Labour and
Education, 2002).
Before moving into the value that this research will add both academically and practically,
it is pertinent to clarify some key concepts that will be used throughout this research and to
address my personal interest as an RPL practitioner.
1.4 Concept clarification
At this stage it is pertinent to define the key concepts that will be used throughout this
research:
1.4.1 Recognition of Prior Learning and SAQA
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) is an international concept that was first mentioned in
South African legislation in the South African Qualification Authority Act, 1995 (Act No 58
of 1995). This Act gave life to the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), which is
the legislative body responsible for the development and implementation of the National
Qualifications Framework (NQF) in South Africa. SAQA’s mission is to ensure that the
NQF contributes to the full development of each learner and to the social and economic
development of the nation at large (SAQA, 2002). RPL is one of the strategies
recommended by SAQA to ensure that this mission is achieved and RPL is referred to as
a fundamental component of the national skills development strategy in South Africa
(SAQA, 2002).
SAQA intends for South Africa to address its need for a more skilled, flexible and
productive workforce through RPL. This has made RPL a fundamental part of the South
African government’s skills development strategy. RPL is defined in National Standards
Bodies Regulations (No. 18787 of 28 March 1998, issued in terms of the SAQA Act 58 of
1995) as follows:
Page 5

18. ‘Recognition of prior learning means the comparison of the previous learning and
experience of a learner howsoever obtained against the learning outcomes required
for a specified qualification, and the acceptance for purposes of qualification of that
which meets the requirements’.
This definition raises the following issues with regard to RPL:
It points out that learning can occur in many different ways and that informal and
non-formal learning can also result in credits;
It states that assessment of the learning must be in relation to specific learning
outcomes required for the qualification in question; and
It implies that if an RPL candidate meets the requirements they will be awarded the
credits or full qualification.
All SAQA and NQF documentation states that RPL should not be seen as a temporary
intervention that will fall away when the past unfair discrimination is redressed and all
people have access to education and training. It is widely emphasised in policy
documentation (SAQA, 2000; 2002; 2003) that RPL be seen as a sustainable model that
can be applied widely to assist candidates to prove their competence, regardless of how
and when they acquired that competence.
The explicit objectives of SAQA in relation to RPL are that it will:
‘Facilitate access to, and mobility and progression within education, training and
career paths; and
Accelerate redress of past unfair discrimination in education, training and
employment opportunities’ (SAQA, 2002).
1.4.2 Logic models, typologies and theories
The purpose of this research is to design a logic model to guide the implementation of RPL
in the workplace. Patton (2002, p. 162-163) defines a logic model (also termed a theory of
action) as a logical and graphical representation showing the connections between
programme inputs, outputs and processes that is used to guide and predict practical
implementation. Simply put, a logic model provides a step-by-step view of a process that
can be followed when implementing whatever it is representing.
Page 6

19. Logic models are different from both typologies and theories. Broadly speaking a typology
is the systematic classification of different types (Oxford Dictionary, 2005) using certain
characteristics to guide the classification. RPL typologies have been proposed (Osman,
2001; Harris, 2002) but these fail to provide the workplace practitioner with sufficient
information to guide implementation.
Theories come in many shapes and sizes. Neuman (2003), for example, lists five different
categories of theories, ranging from pure induction or deduction at the simplest level to an
overall framework of assumptions, beliefs and constructs at the most complex level. This
research cannot hope to deliver up a full theoretical framework for workplace RPL because
of its limited sample and the fact that it is a single event. But it may be able to contribute
to the development of an encompassing RPL theory if its outcomes are validated by
subsequent research findings in the future.
1.4.3 Financial Services Board (FSB) and Financial Advisory and Intermediary
(FAIS) Act
The FAIS Act was introduced to regulate the business of Financial Service Providers
(FSPs) who give advice to clients. In terms of the Act, providers and their advisers are
required to be licensed by the Financial Services Board (FSB) and their professional
conduct is determined by enforced measures. One of these enforced measures is that
advisers and intermediaries must embark upon a structured learning process and earn
academic credits by specific deadlines. The level and number of academic credits is
determined by the complexity of the financial products marketed by the individual adviser,
with more complex, long term investments requiring higher levels and greater number of
credits than short term, low complex investments like funeral policies. The level refers to
the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) managed by SAQA. It is a hierarchical
framework of all nationally registered qualifications from the lowest level at NQF level 1
(roughly equivalent to grade 9) all the way up to an NQF 8 qualification (roughly equivalent
to doctorate level).
1.5 Personal interest in RPL
My personal involvement with RPL started six years ago when I was tasked with
implementing one of the very first workplace RPL implementation projects in South Africa.
Page 7

20. This project involved 1 000 domestic workers and there was a dearth of practical
guidelines for RPL delivery in the workplace. This was the catalyst for this research.
Over the ensuing years I conducted a full literature search, attended both local and
international conferences on RPL and managed new workplace RPL projects. Practices
for RPL implementation evolved and became the basis for this formal research project.
My bias is that I am a workplace practitioner. I have conducted training in a formal
classroom, but my preference is for practical, workplace instruction that is structured,
guided and relevant to the immediate needs of the workplace.
Throughout the research, specific care has been taken to avoid my bias having an impact
on the outcome of the research because it has the potential to impact upon the validity,
reliability and generalisability of the outcomes. These measures include methodological
triangulation, the keeping of a reflective journal and the employment of a rigid data
analysis methodology. These measures are critical if the full value of this research is to be
realised for the various stakeholders; not least of which are the learners who need to be
FAIS compliant in order to retain their livelihood. The anticipated contributions of this
research are discussion in the following section.
1.6 Motivation for and anticipated contribution of the research
As will become apparent, this research is about the RPL experiences of a group of
insurance sector employees employed by one company. On an empirical level, the
research aims to capture and analyse these experiences so as to formulate an improved
methodological process (a logic model) for workplace RPL implementation within the
sector. This research is important because the literature review revealed that no such
scientific research has yet been conducted. Methodologically, the research is also
important for the discipline of qualitative research as a whole as it adds to the growing
body of relevant and practical research that is emanating from this design methodology
(Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999).
On a theoretical level, the research draws on both workplace learning theory and RPL
theory to substantiate parts of the evolving logic model, and it is therefore anticipated that
there will be an iterative flow back into the generally accepted body of scientific research.
Should this happen, one of the key contributions of the research will be the crystallisation
Page 8

21. of the view that RPL is context-specific and that models developed in one context (for
example formal higher education) cannot be readily transferred to another context (such
as the workplace) without the realisation of the potential for a less than optimal outcome.
This point is partially made by some authors (for example Harris, 2000; Michelson, 1999a)
who do point out ‘the main issue to keep in mind is that prior learning, and particularly prior
experiential learning, is itself situated learning – it is informal and particular and deeply
connected to context’ (Harris, 2000). However, they do not conclude that if prior learning
is acquired in a situated context then it should possibly best be assessed in a situated
context.
In addition to the theoretical contribution of a contextual RPL model, this research will
make a social and economic contribution to the insurance sector and its employees’ urgent
need for the acquisition of academic credits to ensure legal compliance. As a result, the
key practical contribution of this research is the development of an RPL model that will
make RPL implementation within this unique context possible. The South African
workplace is a different meta-context to any other international workplace as we have
unique socio-political drivers for RPL in South Africa. These include:
• The need to reconstruct and develop South African society by closing the gap
between those who could access higher education and those who could not
(Marock, 2000; Committee of Technikon Principals, 2001); and
• The need to recognise the knowledge and skills embodied in employees, so that
this can be linked to improved access to further training and consequently to
improved wages, life style and working conditions (Marock, 2000; Michelson,
1999b)
Besides the socio-political rationale for RPL, there are other practical reasons why RPL
needs a uniquely South African model for its implementation. Luckett (1999) and Geyser
(2001) both point out that although RPL is a widely applied concept internationally, the
unique circumstances in South Africa mean that the lessons and methodologies from
abroad cannot simply be imported. Other uniquely South African issues facing RPL
implementation are:
Page 9

22. • Low levels of literacy and numeracy skills in South Africa and the existence of
eleven official languages make it difficult for candidates to be RPL-ed, because
many assessment tools rely on language – so more practical methods of assessing
competence need to be tested (Sanders, 1999; Luckett, 1999).
• The existence of an NQF and the infrastructure of 25 SETAs all striving to place
80 000 learners onto 666 registered learnerships by May 2005, with increasing
targets each year (Department of Labour, 2005, p. 42-51). All of these learners will
require some form of workplace assessment and the currently employed learners
will require at least a small portion of RPL. All of this activity will create a demand
for workplace RPL. However, this demand will outstrip the supply of services if RPL
is offered using a more traditional, developmental RPL model which is hugely
resource intensive (SAQA, 2003).
• The lack of a single body that could take responsibility for RPL implementation
(such as the CAEL2 in the USA and TAFE3 in Australia) will make the process more
difficult (Departments of Education and Labour, 2002). A South African model for
RPL needs to take this into account.
• The lack of registered assessors and moderators leaves South Africa with a
tremendous backlog (Departments of Education and Labour, 2002).
• The lack of South African qualitative RPL research and case studies. Breier and
Burness (2003) and Harris (2002) have identified this as a problem and they stress
that uniquely South African research into RPL is needed to assist practitioners and
to conceptualise, categorise and implement RPL in South Africa. This research will
be one of the few qualitative workplace RPL studies to be conducted in South
Africa.
From the above, it is clear that the development of a uniquely South African RPL
implementation model for the workplace will have wide reaching implications, not only for
the insurance sector but also for other sectors. The South African economy is in
desperate need of skilled workers (Bernstein, 2007) yet many competent citizens are
under-utilised simply because they cannot show evidence of their competence. An RPL
model that is developed with due consideration of South Africa’s needs will be able to
2
CAEL – Council for Adult and Experiential Learning
3
TAFE – Technical and Further Education Colleges
Page 10

23. assist individuals to take advantage of the many opportunities available for qualified staff.
This could arguably have far reaching consequences for the South African economy.
1.7 Aim, objectives and research questions of the study
The primary research aim of this research is to develop a logic model for RPL
implementation in the insurance workplace. This model will be designed using the
data collected during the programme evaluation of another workplace RPL implementation
in the insurance sector. This primary research aim is broadly stated, following the
guidance of Marshall and Rossman (1995, p. 26), who state that qualitative ‘research
questions should be general enough to permit exploration but focused enough to delimit
the study’. This suggests that the questions and objectives need to make provision for
flexibility in qualitative research. In order to both understand and achieve these broad
research aims, the advice of Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 18–22) was followed. They
suggest that researchers should construct a conceptual framework to help them ‘decide
which variables are most important, which relationships are likely to be most meaningful,
and, as a consequence, what information should be collected and analysed – at least at
the outset.’
Following the development of the conceptual framework (shown in Figure 1.1), the
following empirical research questions were formulated to guide the programme evaluation
in this research:
1. How was the decision to implement RPL made?
2. How was the RPL programme rolled out to participants?
3. What individual factors contributed to RPL success?
4. What contextual workplace and broader environmental factors contributed to RPL
success?
5. What technical assistance was needed to complete the RPL process?
6. Was the RPL programme considered successful?
7. How should South African business manage RPL implementation?
Page 11

24. From these conceptual questions the following broad research objectives can be derived:
Objective 1: To employ a qualitative methodology to establish and describe the
experiences of RPL candidates during an RPL implementation process;
Objective 2: To link the experiences of the RPL candidates to the literature that
describes workplace learning and assessment practices so as to understand their
experiences, both as part of this learning paradigm and as part of the RPL
implementation process;
Objective 3: To link these experiences to other workplace RPL case studies so as
to identify trends and categories that add value and clarity to the experiences of the
RPL candidates;
Objective 4: To build a logic model for workplace RPL implementation that is based
upon both an analysis of the experiences of the RPL candidates and an analysis of
workplace learning theory and RPL theory;
Objective 5: To apply the insights gained from both the RPL candidates and the
scholarly articles on RPL and workplace learning in order to redefine and
reconceptualise current RPL implementation approaches contemplated for the
insurance sector (and possibly even in other similar workplace sectors, such as
banking where FAIS compliance is also a factor for employability).
The conceptual framework that gave clarity to these questions and objectives is
graphically depicted in Figure 1.1. It summarises the ‘main things to be studied’, shows
the variables, factors and constructs, and the possible relationships between them (Miles
& Huberman, 1994).
Page 12

25. Factors Workplace
Implementation
impacting context Outcomes
process
adoption (i.e. unit of analysis)
RPL adviser explains RPL process.
Workplace factors: Demographics.
•Economic (cost of a Side effects –
Prior history with innovation. Candidates worked alone on positive and
solution);
•Social responsibility portfolio of evidence. negative
(can’t have mass Prior history and knowledge
of RPL or INSETA/SAQA
retrenchment);
•Legal (must comply). training initiatives. Candidates given support on
request. FAIS
Organisational norms, compliance –
culture, work arrangements, yes or no?
policies to encourage study, Candidates submit portfolios after
Legal factors: work breakdown and flow. completion of some evidence for
National Educational review. Improvements
Management support for the for workplace
policy and framework
(SAQA, NQF, RPL); RPL programme. Assessor assesses – feedback given RPL in future?
Legal environment (FAIS). and candidates collect additional
Technology available. evidence to complete portfolio.
Other
Assessor assesses final product and outcomes?
makes final decision.
How do these
outcomes fit
Individual factors: Moderators check validity of final with the
• Economic (can’t afford Skill, attitude, decision. literature?
retrenchment); perception of RPL
•Legal (must comply); candidates Credits awarded to competent
• Social and educational candidates.
history;
• Attitude to need to
comply.
Figure 1-1 Conceptual framework for this research
Page 13

26. Working from the left to the right, Figure 1.1 starts with the conceptualisation of the broad
macro factors impacting the RPL adoption. These include workplace factors, legal factors
and individual factors. These macro factors are seen as ‘given’ and largely unchangeable.
The legal factors impact both the employer and the individual in that they determine the
broad legal framework within which both FAIS compliance and RPL must take place. The
organisation is subject to the workplace factors in that it cannot afford to lose large
numbers of staff due to non-compliance, yet it must comply with the legislation that
requires FAIS compliance. Lastly, the affected individuals within the organisation bring
their individual factors into the RPL situation. These vary from individual to individual and
are arguably a consequence of their social and educational history. All individuals must
comply with the legislation but it is postulated that their reaction to the law is determined by
their previous experience with studying, their social history and whether they can afford the
consequence of being non-compliant. These three macro factors that impact the adoption
of RPL lead into the second column, which identifies the workplace contextual variables
that may have an impact on RPL implementation. It can be argued that these are unique
to each employer and could have an impact on the generalisability of the research as a
whole. They also impact the skills, attitudes and overall perception of the staff towards the
RPL programme (this is depicted at the bottom of the second column). Variables that are
considered to be important are:
• the demographics of the workforce (race, age, gender, cultures, geography, job
position, etc.);
• the organisation’s prior experience with innovative ideas (because if the staff
have been exposed to innovative ideas like RPL before and these have worked,
the staff may be more inclined to embrace a new innovation);
• prior history with RPL and other INSETA training initiatives (because if they have
some experience of working with outcomes-based training and unit standards
then the RPL will be easier to relate to and less intimidating);
• the workplace norms surrounding study, workflow, etc. (because where these
facilitate individual success, it can be argued that there is more likely to be
success, whereas some workplace cultures have norms that are counter-
productive to individual success);
• the support of management for the RPL programme (where management is
openly supportive, the RPL programme will probably have a greater success
rate);
Page 14

27. • the technology available (RPL requires resources such as the internet so if
these are not available in the workplace learners will have to source them
elsewhere).
These workplace contextual variables in turn lead into the implementation process,
summarised in the third column. Here the basic RPL process is sketched from top to
bottom. It commences with the RPL adviser explaining the process, the learners working
alone, seeking assistance when they require it and submitting their portfolios for
assessment when ready. The assessor assesses their work, provides feedback and
allows them to remediate. The assessor’s decision is validated by the moderator and the
learner is awarded any credits that are due to them. All three columns (macro
environment, micro environment and implementation of this project) feed into the
outcomes column which, at this stage, is a series of questions that have been used to
guide the objectives stated above. The empirical research questions were formulated as a
result of being able to visualise the conceptual framework and they follow the flow
intuitively.
This moves us into the next section, which briefly outlines how the research was designed
and implemented, given the theoretical research questions, aim and objectives.
1.8 Design overview
According to Terre Blanche and Durrheim (2002), there are three broad paradigms in the
social sciences: positivist, interpretative and constructionist. Each of these brings with it a
unique view of reality (ontology), a view about the nature of the relationship between the
researcher and what can be known (epistemology) and recommendations for designing
and conducting the research (methodology). My particular ontological, epistemological
and methodological perspectives place this research in the interpretative paradigm, which
suggests a qualitative research methodology. This research will, however, (following
Patton, 2002, 69–70 and Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 30) be approached pragmatically
rather than simply adhering blindly to the methodology embedded in a particular paradigm
and its defining epistemology and ontology.
Page 15

28. Bogdan and Bilken (2003, p. 2) have the following to say about qualitative research: ‘(w)e
use qualitative research as an umbrella term to refer to several research strategies that
share certain characteristics. The data collected have been termed soft, that is, rich in
description of people, places, and conversations, and not easily handled by statistical
procedures.’ They go on to say that researchers in this paradigm do not start out with
hypotheses to test and that the main focus is on understanding the behaviour from the
perspective of the participants. This definition and viewpoint fits both the purpose and
objectives of this research.
After careful consideration of the purpose of the study, the research questions and my
situation as a practitioner in the field of workplace RPL, it was further decided that optimal
results and understanding would come from a programme evaluation of a workplace RPL
implementation process. The data collected during the programme evaluation will be
analysed using the techniques of grounded theory data analysis. The specifics of the
research design and research methodology will be described in great detail in the next
chapter. What remains for this chapter is to present a chapter-by-chapter overview of the
remainder of the research thesis.
1.9 Chapter outline and technical presentation of the thesis
This first chapter has presented the reader with an overview of the research. The problem
of needing a workplace RPL model for the insurance sector has been articulated and the
broad context has been sketched. Chapter 1 also set the scene by clarifying the use of
key concepts and justifying the need for the research. The balance of this research is
presented as follows:
Chapter 2 commences with a discussion on the broad research paradigm that informs the
research design and research methodology in this research. The various techniques
employed are described, including programme evaluation, sampling, data collection
techniques and grounded theory data analysis technique. This chapter also summarises
the secondary data analysis. Chapter 3 describes the implementation of the programme
evaluation for this research.
Page 16

29. Chapter 4 focuses on the presentation of data and the analysis of this data using the
techniques described. Samples of raw data are presented in the annexure to give the
reader insight into the actual words used by the RPL candidates. The discussion in this
chapter links the data to the emerging logic model. Chapter 5 presents the literature
review, starting with a quick review of the most prominent theories of learning, which leads
into a review of the most prominent workplace learning theories. The chapter concludes
with a summary of the categories that emerged during the data analysis in Chapter 4 and
shows how these are supported by the reviewed literature.
Chapter 6 presents the theory for logic modelling as well as a series of logic
models which culminate in an all encompassing logic model to guide workplace
RPL implementation in the insurance sector.
The research concludes with Chapter 7 – the conclusions and
recommendations chapter. The research contributions are detailed, along with
cautions arising from the limitations of some of the research design features.
The recommendations are presented in relation to the research objectives
stated in this first chapter.
1.10 Chapter summary
This chapter summarises the background to the research and states the broad
research purpose, aim and objectives. Essentially, the research is formulated
to design a logic model for the implementation of workplace RPL in the
insurance sector. The key driver behind this need is to give intermediaries and
advisers affected by the FAIS legislation an alternative to traditional training so
as to enable them to earn the academic credits required to become licensed
financial service providers. Although this is in itself a significant contribution of
the research, the chapter also includes a discussion of other research
contributions – both methodological and theoretical.
Page 17

30. CHAPTER 2 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
‘A goal properly set is halfway reached.’
- Abraham Lincoln
2.1 Introduction
This chapter builds on the rationale for selecting qualitative research methodology to
develop a logic model for workplace RPL implementation. The various protocols for
collecting and analysing data are presented and discussed in relation to the research
methodological literature so as to justify and explain the choices made during the
research. The chapter describes the research design and methodological decisions made,
including those dealing with sampling, data collection and data analysis. In addition, the
grounded theory data analysis techniques are discussed as a precursor to Chapter 4
where these will are practically applied to analyse the data collected in Chapter 3.
2.2 The research paradigm
Henning, van Rensburg and Smit (2004, p. 12) points out that ‘(r)esearch cannot be
conducted in a theoretical vacuum’ because researchers bring with them background
knowledge which they use to interpret what they see. This background knowledge ‘tells us
what exists, how to understand it, and – most concretely – how to study it. In the social
sciences such background knowledges are called paradigms’ (Terre Blanche & Durrheim,
2002, p. 3).
This research takes place within the interpretative paradigm, which guides the researcher
to understand the world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it. The
focus in this research is on the people who have a stake4 in RPL – either from the
perspective of needing to be RPL-ed or from that of a policy maker or other role-player. In
this paradigm, the candidates’ subjective experiences are considered to be real and they
are taken seriously (ontology). The researcher reaches an understanding of the
4
The term ‘stakeholder’ was first used by Richard Stake (1974) and it refers to a person
with a vested interest in a particular programme.
Page 18

31. stakeholders’ experiences by interacting with them and collecting their first-hand reports
(epistemology) and relies on qualitative research techniques to collect and analyse the
data (methodology).
2.3 Qualitative research
Today, qualitative research is found in virtually all recognised social science disciplines
and study areas (Patton, 2002; Merriam, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) and within each
discipline it has evolved differently - to a point where there is little consensus on exactly
what must be in place to classify a study as qualitative research (Patton, 2002). However,
it can be argued that there is one thing all qualitative researchers agree on, and that is
they are anti-positivistic: they reject the idea of stable laws that govern social reality.
The definition of qualitative research that fits best with my ontology and epistemology is
that of John Creswell (1998, p. 15) who states: ‘(q)ualitative research is an inquiry process
of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social
or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyses words,
reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting.’
Authors such as Patton (2002), Bogdan and Bilken (2003) and Strauss and Corbin (1998)
are of the opinion that the following characteristics are key to qualitative research:
Context: Qualitative researchers believe that the social world can only be understood
if the natural social context is taken into consideration. This implies that qualitative
researchers observe and note the sequence of events and the circumstances
surrounding the particular dimension of social reality that they are researching. In
addition, this also implies that particular events or human activities may have different
meanings in different subcultures, cultures or historical periods.
Descriptive data: Qualitative researchers typically gather data in the form of words,
narratives, or pictures and rarely in the form of numbers. Their data includes interview
transcripts, memos and field notes and a great deal of care is taken to record the
precise words used by the stakeholders themselves.
Page 19

32. Process and sequence: Qualitative researchers are not really concerned with the
outcomes of the event they are studying – they are more concerned with the social
processes and sequences that evolve in the research.
Inductive: Qualitative researchers construct concepts, typologies, models and
theories that are grounded in the situation they are researching. These researchers
rarely collect data to test some or other pre-conceived model, hypothesis or theory.
This led Bogdan and Bilken (2003) to state that ‘(t)heory developed this way emerges
from the bottom up (rather than from the top down).’ They go on to state that
because the theory is grounded in the actual data collected it is difficult to plan ahead
and specify detailed research questions, methods and approaches. They feel that
qualitative research is more like a journey and that the researcher simply follows the
path.
Broadly then, qualitative research is different from quantitative research because it seeks to
understand what is going on from the position of a participant; rather than predict what will
happen from the position of an outsider. As such the research design and techniques that
qualitative researchers use are different from those used by quantitative researchers and
there is less emphasis on the way that data is collected and measured and more emphasis
on the subjective experiences of the participants.
The following section deals specifically with the research design, which Durrheim (2002, p.
29) defines as ‘a strategic framework for action that serves as a bridge between research
questions and the execution or implementation of the research.’ He goes on to state that
when developing a research design, the researcher should consider: the research
paradigm, the purpose of the research, the techniques that will be used during the
research, and the context of the research. As the paradigm and purpose have already
been discussed, only the latter two issues will be considered in the section which follows.
2.4 Research design for this study
The research design is the strategic framework guiding the implementation of research.
Bogdan and Bilken (1998, p. 50) write that qualitative research design is flexible, rather
than rigid, because descriptive data are best collected and analysed inductively because
Page 20

33. the intention is to understand human behaviour. They feel that a design that is too
inflexible will be counter-productive towards this intention as it is impossible to predict the
course that data collection will take. This research design follows the advice of these
authors and tends towards flexibility rather than rigidity.
Given the overall aim and objectives of the research and the theoretical paradigm that
informs this research, the research design selected is a programme evaluation. The data
will be analysed using grounded theory data analysis techniques. A decision was taken to
use these techniques developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and refined by Strauss and
Corbin (1998), because of the need for a strict, systematic coding method to assist me to
analyse the data from the programme evaluation. It was only by using techniques as
robust as these that a logic model for workplace RPL implementation could be formulated.
Finally the data is validated by comparison to data extracted from a secondary data
analysis of 18 workplace case studies and the more influential academic literature on
workplace learning and RPL.
2.4.1 Introduction to programme evaluation
Potter (2002, p. 209) states that programme evaluation is ‘about establishing whether
social programmes are needed, effective and likely to be used.’ Further, it is about
programme improvement and the gathering of useful information so as to enhance
programme delivery and accountability by the programme implementers.
According to Patton (2002), pure programme evaluation was summative and quantitatively
measured in the past, whereas what he terms ‘quality monitoring’ was more qualitative and
formative (i.e. ongoing measurement conducted during the programme’s implementation
cycle). This research is qualitative and therefore draws on quality assurance
methodologies such as in-depth interviews with participants and stakeholders (Patton,
1997), and participant observation (Denzin, 1970). This methodology allows for the
collection of multiple outcomes and thoughts from a number of participants - also called
categories by grounded theory proponents (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). These multiple outcomes provide more meaningful measures of complex human
experiences than would a limited set of standardised outcome measures (as would be
collected in a quantitative assessment of a programme). The collection of data from
Page 21

34. multiple methods also contributes to methodological triangulation (to be discussed in
section 2.6).
The emphasis in this programme evaluation is on the process that the RPL implementation
followed so that an improved RPL process, that is better suited to the needs of the
insurance workplace, can be suggested. Patton (2002, p. 159) states that ‘(q)ualitative
inquiry is highly appropriate for studying process because (1) depicting process requires
detailed descriptions of how people engage with each other, (2) the experience of process
typically varies for different people so their experiences need to be captured in their own
words, (3) the process is fluid and dynamic so it can’t be fairly summarised in a single
rating scale at one point in time, and (4) participant perceptions are a key process
consideration.’
The rich, descriptive information collected during the programme evaluation will be used to
create a logic model to guide future implementation of workplace RPL. A logic model
needs to simply show a reasonable and sequential process, which is in contrast to a
‘theory of change’ which Patton (2002, p. 162) defines as bearing ‘the burden of specifying
and explaining assumed, hypothesised, or tested causal links.’ He goes on to state that a
logic model is more likely to be practical and practitioner developed, whereas a theory of
change is more likely to be research-based. As I am first and foremost an RPL
practitioner, it is more fitting that I develop a logic model to guide RPL implementation.
However, Patton (2002) does point out that the distinction between the two theories is
often blurred and unclear in reality.
It is evident from the above discussion that I was personally involved in the programme
implementation. Potter (2002) states that ‘without being personally involved and drawn
into the world of others, it would be impossible to develop an understanding of social life
and discover how people create meaning in natural settings; and without this type of
understanding, it would be impossible to evaluate a programme.’ My advantage as a
researcher in this instance is my prolonged engagement with both the company that
implemented the RPL and the staff who lived through the programme.
The programme evaluation literature indicates that there two widely applied qualitative
programme evaluation models. The first is Patton's (1986; 1997) utilisation-focused
Page 22

35. evaluation model and the second is Guba and Lincoln's (1989) fourth generation
evaluation model. Schurink (2003) states that Guba and Lincoln’s model was the
preferred qualitative evaluation approach among South African evaluators before the date
of his review but that, in his opinion, both methods deserved serious consideration by
programme evaluators. This research will, however, focus on a discussion of the
approach proposed by Patton as it fits best with the interpretivist paradigm espoused by
this research.
Patton (2002, p. 173) states that ‘(u)tilisation-focused evaluation offers an evaluative
process, strategy, and framework for making decisions about the content, focus, and
methods of an evaluation.’ Key elements of the utilisation-focused evaluation approach
are summarised by Patton (2002, p. 171) as:
(i) It is informed by a focus on the ‘intended use by the intended users’ (ibid.). This
focus impacts every design decision in the evaluation. As such, it is a highly
situational approach to evaluation, with no two evaluations ever being the same;
(ii) It begins with the ‘identification and organisation of specific, relevant decision
makers and information users’ (ibid.). These are not vague categories of
interested stakeholders – these are the people who will use the information
gained through the evaluation;
(iii) The values of the intended user-groups will direct the evaluation because
ultimately these are the people who have an interest in the outcomes and who
will use the evaluation data;
(iv) The evaluator works with the identified stakeholders to focus the research
questions. The research methodologies will flow from the questions and,
according to Patton (2002), no methodology will be overlooked if it can add
value to the research questions. It is the researcher’s role to advise the
stakeholders on the merits and demerits of various research methodologies
proposed while at all times focusing on the prospective usage of the information
to be uncovered. As such, the approach is then also highly personal as the
researcher’s skills and knowledge play a role in the selection of particular
methodologies – although Patton (2002) cautions against this and states that
researchers must be aware of their own socio-methodological biases and how
these will affect the evaluations they conduct;
Page 23

36. (v) There is a constant focus on how the data will be used throughout the evaluation
– ‘What would you do if you had that information right now?’ is a common
question posed by a researcher following this methodology.
From the above summary, it is clear that Patton’s (2002) utilisation-focused evaluation
approach rests on two basic requirements. Firstly, the identification of the intended users
must be clear and they must be real people (as opposed to agencies such as SAQA or
INSETA). Secondly, the role of the evaluator is to work with the stakeholders - actively,
reactively and adaptively - to design the full evaluation process, including: the focus,
methods, analysis, interpretation, and final dissemination of the outcomes.
Patton (1986) also points out that there are multiple and varied interests in any evaluation.
Evaluators need to identify these sensitively and be respectful of the differences.
However, reality and resources often dictate that it is impossible to investigate all possible
issues – and the narrower the issues are the more likely it is that the evaluation will
produce meaningful results. Patton (1986) recommends that stakeholders meet at the
beginning of an evaluation to agree on the most burning issues to be evaluated so as to
obtain maximum benefit from the research. Patton also writes that evaluators using this
approach have a responsibility to train stakeholders in the various processes utilised and
in the use of the final reports. Patton (2002) calls this process use – helping people to
learn about evaluation by being part of an evaluation.
Patton (1997) has outlined the major steps to be taken when embarking upon utilisation-
focused evaluation and these will be used in Chapter 3 to guide the discussion on the
programme evaluation.
2.4.2 Secondary data analysis
Secondary data analysis is an empirical research approach that aims to reanalyse existing
data in order to test an emerging hypothesis or to validate an emerging model (Mouton,
2001, p. 164). The secondary data analysed in this research was originally produced by
Dyson and Keating (2005) on behalf of the International Labour Organisation. It is a report
summarising workplace RPL cases in five countries. The case studies are presented in
narrative form, along with a summary of the prevailing national qualifications system.
Page 24

37. These case studies have been selected for an analysis because they represent the only
summary of workplace RPL that was available at the time of conducting this research.
2.5 Research methodology
The research design discussed above provides an explicit plan of action and it informs the
choice of the techniques that are employed in order to conduct the research. According to
Durrheim (2002, p. 44) research techniques can be divided into three broad categories:
sampling, data collection and data analysis. A more detailed discussion of each of these
techniques in relation to this current research follows, together with a discussion on data
displays and explicit strategies employed to enhance the quality of the study. This
information will assist the reader to judge the quality and trustworthiness of this research
and the logic model it proposes.
2.5.1 Sampling
According to Durrheim (2002, p. 44), sampling involves ‘decisions about which people,
settings, events, behaviours and/or social processes to observe’. The main concern is
representativeness of the sample. In other words the sample that is selected must
represent the population about which the researcher hopes to reach conclusions.
The sampling in this research took place on a number of different levels. Firstly, there was
the question of which RPL programme to select. In the end, the choice was based on
readiness of access and the fact that the company concerned granted permission to
conduct the programme evaluation and write up the research (this is known as purposeful
sampling according to Durrheim). This company was also a ‘good’ example of an RPL
project because the percentage of people who completed the RPL process was larger
than normal. (The outsourced implementer-company records show that 95% of those who
started the RPL process actually completed it, which is far better than the average of 67%
completions achieved in other projects implemented by the same company.) The entire
sample was 227 staff members and all of them were asked to visit the on-line chat room
and give feedback on their experiences during the RPL programme. All participants’
reflective statements were also used in the research, although some were too short to be
considered useful.
Page 25

38. Secondly, there was the question of how to select RPL candidates to be interviewed. The
sampling strategy employed was purposeful sampling, which is non-random sampling
where the sample is selected for some extreme or deviant characteristics (Durrheim,
2002). All seven candidates ultimately selected to be interviewed were purposefully
selected for their possible contribution to the research and the logic model. The
candidates selected were either very positive or very negative about the process in their
reflective statements or in the on-line chat room.
Thirdly, purposeful sampling was again used to select stakeholders who would contribute
to the broad positioning of this research. Stakeholders from SAQA, INSETA and the
company were selected based on their knowledge of the process and their role as a
possible user of the data. These are considered to be information rich cases which would
be valuable in the design of the final RPL logic model (Durrheim, 1999, p. 45). One
representative was selected from SAQA, two from INSETA, and one from the
management structures of the employer. Five information rich cases were purposefully
selected from the company managing the implementation.
In the three sampling scenarios described above, all cases were purposefully selected
until no new information was being discovered. This is called sampling to redundancy,
which involves not defining your sample size up-front – but rather continuing to interview
until the same categories and issues come up. At this point, the sample will have
achieved redundancy in the sense that no new information will be uncovered simply by
increasing the sample size.
Although the decision to limit the research to a single employer (even though this employer
is spread national wide and reflects South Africa’ multiculturalism) means that the results
will not be statistically representative, it is likely that the experiences described will be
transferable to other, similarly structured workplace contexts. This could mean that the
logic model for RPL implementation, designed as a result of this sample, could have
greater applicability beyond just this one employer - at least to the entire insurance sector
(if not to other workplaces). However, this assumption will need to be validated by
additional research.
Page 26

39. To summarise, the sample selection was as follows:
One employer with 227 RPL candidates distributed as follows:
o 38% Male vs. 62% Female;
o Average age was 42 years old;
o Average tenure was 9 years;
o 45% had Afrikaans as their home language and 42% had English as their
home language. The remainder cited other languages as home languages;
One representative from SAQA;
Two representatives from INSETA;
One representative from the training and development department within the
employer;
Five representatives from the company implementing the research.
2.5.2 Data collection
Data is the ‘basic material with which researchers work’ (Durrheim, 2002, p.45). In
qualitative analysis it comes about through observation and is recorded as language. For
the data to be of any value in research it must have validity, in other words ‘it must capture
the meaning of what the researcher is observing’ (Durrheim, p. 46) within the context of
the investigation.
In this research, data was collected in a variety of ways, i.e.:
All RPL candidates in the selected employer were sent an email requesting that
they log on to the on-line chat room and comment on the RPL programme;
All candidates’ reflective statements were copied from their submitted portfolio of
evidence. However, only 96 of these were finally used as the remainder were either
too sparse, not authentic or incomplete;
Extreme candidates (using the reflective statements as the determining factor) were
purposefully selected to be interviewed;
Extreme candidates from the various stakeholder groups were purposefully
selected to be interviewed. Stakeholders included SAQA, INSETA, assessors, RPL
advisers and in-company sponsors.
Page 27