**3. Methods**

The study adopted a qualitative research method in this study to understand the relevance of new higher education approaches in Zimbabwean HEIs. This enabled us to avoid making preconceived judgements as to why certain arguments were raised during data collection [37]. The chosen methodology offered depth in understanding experiences through interviews rather than simply dealing with the rank-and-file of recorded approaches, feelings, and actions of study participants. Importantly, research quality relies on researchers' abilities and weaknesses. The

#### *Relevance of New Higher Education Approaches in Zimbabwe's 'Second Republic' DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99934*

target population was lecturers from all HEIs. The entire sample was drawn from CUT and was assumed to be "representative" of HEIs' teaching staff. The professional practices, morals, skills, and socio-political inclinations of the teaching profession were the basis for the selection, exclusion, and inclusion of samples in the research. Individual research participants' understanding and experience in higher education teaching and learning guided data collection and data analysis. Thematic analysis was used to present the data and discuss generic views from interviewees. This was possible through the coding and indexing of transcriptions. Purposive sampling techniques were used to identify and choose sampling elements. As noted by [38, 39], the investigator's view on the attributes of a representative sample played a central role in probing the samples by focusing on lecturers' experiences, qualifications, and known incidents of exposure to curriculum reform and adaptation to new forms of higher education techniques over the years. Notably, they were found at CUT. Within a study, there is a need to clarify the sample size to ensure validity and reliability of findings. The DCAD has twelve lecturers, five of which had higher education teaching and learning experience in the DCAD; thus, we chose these individuals to interview. Their experience was used to solidify the results of the study. The findings became generic after the fourth interviewee. We conducted the fifth interview only to be sure of the saturation of data gathered. Using face-toface interviews, we solicited answers to the research questions. However, it was not unqualified, which is a prominent weakness of the data collection method.
